Bombay High Court
Baleshwar Pandey vs Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 3 March, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp1290.15.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1290 OF 2015
PETITIONER: Baleshwar Pandey Aged about 54 years,
Occ: Retired, Plot No.(16 & 16),
Gurunanak nagar Society, Vaishali
Nagar, M.I.D.C. Hingna Road, Nagpur-
16.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS:
ig 1. Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Central Reserve Police Force, Nagpur
Range, Nagpur-440 019.
2. Commandant, 213 (M), Battalion,
CRPF, GC Campus, Nagpur-440019.
Mrs. R. S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rohit Deo, Asstt. Solicitor General of India for respondents.
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK
AND
SHRI A.S. CHANDURKAR JJ.
DATED
: 0 3 RD
MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition
is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the
parties.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
wp1290.15.odt 2/5
respondent No.1 - Dy. Inspector General of Police, Force Nagpur
Range Nagpur to release full compensation pension @ Rs.14,930/-
per month as admissible to the petitioner with effect from
3-3-2014. The petitioner has also sought a direction to the
respondent No.1 to release the amount of gratuity payable to the
petitioner.
The petitioner was an employee of the CRPF and was
charged with an offence punishable under the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The criminal prosecution was launched against the
petitioner and the petitioner was convicted of the offences
punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. Simultaneously, the respondents conducted the departmental
enquiry against the petitioner and at the culmination of the
departmental proceedings, a penalty of compulsory retirement
from service was inflicted upon the petitioner. However, the order
mentioned that the petitioner was entitled to full compensation
pension. The petitioner did not challenge the order imposing the
penalty of compulsory retirement and is satisfied with the order as
the petitioner was permitted full compensation pension. Though
the order of compulsory retirement is passed on 3-3-2014, it is the
case of the petitioner that the respondents have failed to release
the full compensation pension to the petitioner with effect from
wp1290.15.odt 3/5
the said date. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court
for a direction to the respondents to pay full compensation pension
with effect from 3-3-2014 and also pay the gratuity.
Mrs. Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted by relying on the para 9 of the petition that an amount
of Rs.9,93,245/- is payable to the petitioner towards the arrears of
full compensation pension, Gratuity, Group Insurance Scheme
allowance, Leave encashment, dearness allowance and interest on
delayed payment of General Provident Fund. It is stated that the
arrears of full compensation pension of Rs.1,54,230/- were liable
to be paid to the petitioner till the date of filing of the petition on
28-1-2015. It is submitted that in view of the order dated
3-3-2014, the respondents ought to have released the retiral
benefits to the petitioner immediately after he was compulsorily
retired from service. It is stated that the retiral benefits are not
paid to the petitioner till date.
Shri Rohit Deo, the learned Assistant Solicitor General
of India appearing on behalf of the respondents admitted that the
petitioner was held entitled for full compensation pension. It is
submitted that the respondents desired to pay the full
compensation pension and the other retiral benefits to the
petitioner, but the dues were not paid as the petitioner has filed an
wp1290.15.odt 4/5
appeal against the order of conviction in the criminal trial before
the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and the same is pending. It is
stated that the respondents are ready to release the amount
immediately after the appeal is decided.
We find that the respondents were not justified in
withholding the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner, including
the full compensation pension to which the petitioner was held
entitled only on the ground that the criminal appeal filed by the
petitioner against the order of conviction in the criminal trial is
pending in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. Despite the
conviction of the petitioner in the criminal trial, the petitioner was
held entitled to full compensation pension vide the order dated
3-3-2014. The order passed in the departmental proceedings was
not based on the pendency of the criminal trial. The departmental
enquiry was independently conducted and the punishment of
compulsory retirement from service was imposed upon the
petitioner. The petitioner was, however, held entitled to full
compensation pension. If that is so, there is no nexus whatsoever
with the pendency of criminal appeal filed by the petitioner in the
Jammu and Kashmir High Court and in the matter of payment of
retiral benefits to the petitioner. We find that withholding of retiral
benefits payable to the petitioner on the aforesaid ground is bad in
wp1290.15.odt 5/5
law. In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to
direct the respondent to release the retiral benefits, including full
compensation pension to the petitioner within a time frame in
accordance with law.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid the writ petition is
allowed. The respondents are directed to release the arrears of full
compensation pension and the other retiral benefits to the
petitioner as early as possible and positively within a period of two
months. The petitioner would be entitled to statutory interest on
the amount payable towards gratuity in terms of the provisions of
Rule 68 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules from the date
of filing of the petition i.e. 28-1-2015 till the amount is paid.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
//MULEY//
