Kh. Jilla Singh vs State Of Manipur & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 397 Mani

SHOUGRA by
            Digitally signed                                                                IN. 94
KPAM     SHOUGRAKPAM
         DEVANANDA
DEVANAN SINGH
DA SINGH Date: 2022.08.30
         16:47:08 +05'30'
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                    AT IMPHAL

           WP(C) No. 304 of 2020
           Kh. Jilla Singh                                          ... Petitioner
                   Vs.
           State of Manipur & ors.                                  ... Respondents

B E F O R E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH 30-08-2022 [1] Heard Mr. L. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. L. Gunindro, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4.

[2] The present writ petition had been filed with a prayer for directing the respondents to release the leave encashment/ unutilized earned leave of 300 days due payable to the petitioner within a stipulated period. [3] The case of the petitioner is that he retired from service while holding the post of Executive Engineer in the Tribal Affairs & Hills Department, Government of Manipur w.e.f. 31-12-2018 on attaining the age of superannuation and after his retirement, the petitioner have been given all the retiral benefits due payable to him. On 18-07-2019, the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Manipur wrote a letter to the Under Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur stating that 300 days of unutilized earned leave are available at the credit of the petitioner as on 31-12-2018 and requesting to accord sanction in that regard for taking necessary action. When the State Government failed to given sanction for releasing the benefits of the 300 days of unutilized earned leave due payable to the petitioner, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present writ petition for redressing his grievances. [4] In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 3, it has been stated, inter alia, that a Departmental Enquiry against two Officers of the Department was initiated in connection with the

WP(C) No. 304 of 2020 Contd.../-

fraudulent withdrawal of money of the Department and that one of the Officer involved in the Departmental Enquiry identified that the petitioner had taken an advance money to the tune of Rs. 2,24,90,000/- (Rupees two crores twenty four lakhs ninety thousand) from the Department fraudulently and that the petitioner was very much involved in the fraudulent withdrawal of public money and for that reason, the State Government has not given sanction for the leave encashment/ earned leave of 300 days due payable to the petitioner.

[5] It is submitted at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned Government Advocate that as on today, no Departmental Enquiry is pending against the petitioner. Mr. L. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the judgment and order dated 29-03-2022 passed by a Division Bench of this court in W.A. No. 17 of 2020, similar issue had been decided and that the said judgment and order squarely covers the issue raised in the present case. The learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the present writ petition can be disposed of in terms of the directions and observations given by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment. The relevant portion of the judgment and order reads as under:-

"[22] In the light of statutory scheme obtaining under the State's Pension Rules and the case law set out supra, it is clear that the authorities have no power to withhold gratuity and pension even during the pendency of disciplinary/judicial proceedings in the event the Government servant is allowed to retire as there is no provision in the rules extant akin to Rule 43(c) of the Bihar Pension Rules or Rule 34.2 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. As per Rule 9, which is applicable presently, it is only after the conclusion of disciplinary/ judicial proceedings and the rendering of a finding of guilt therein against a Government servant that the question of withholding his/her gratuity and pension would arise. As already noted supra, it cannot even be deemed at this stage that any department or judicial proceedings have been instituted against respondent No. 1. However, serious the allegation or misconduct may be, without the sanction of law and a legal foundation for such

WP(C) No. 304 of 2020 Contd.../-

punitive action, it is not open to the authorities to withhold the lawful benefits due and payable to a retired employee on the ground that he or she may, thereafter, be found guilty of causing pecuniary loss to the Government, Bereft of such legal sanction, the action of the authorities in withholding pension and gratuity cannot be countenanced."

"[23] Further, as noted hereinbefore, it would be open to the State to recover the amount of loss determined as payable by a public servant after a finding of guilt, even after retirement, be it from the salary and entitlements payable to the public servant or from his/ her other incomes, either through institution of a civil suit or by any other means available in law. Therefore, it is not as if the Government would be remediless if the proceedings culminate in such a finding notwithstanding the retirement of respondent No. 1 and payment of her retirement benefits." "[24] On the above analysis, this Court finds that, as on date, no department or judicial proceedings even exist or can be deemed to exist against respondent No. 1, whereby recourse, however shaky, can at least be attempted to some basis for withholding her pension and gratuity. In the absence of legal sanction, the action of the State authorities in resorting to withholding her pension and gratuity cannot be said to be lawful. The direction of the learned Judge to release such benefits therefore does not warrant interference. In the event judicial proceedings initiated against respondent No. 1, if any, culminate in a sustainable finding of her guilt in relation to the missing Rs.

1. 21 Crore, it would be open to the authorities to take recourse to the remedies available to them in law for recovering such financial loss from respondent No. 1.

Subject to this observation, the writ appeal is dismissed. The appellants shall implement the order under appeal within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment and order."

[6] Mr. A. Vashum, learned Government Advocate fairly submitted that he has received instruction from the concerned authorities that as on today, no Departmental Enquiry is pending against the petitioner and the

WP(C) No. 304 of 2020 Contd.../-

learned Government Advocate submitted that any appropriate order may be passed by this court.

[7] After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record of the present case, this court is of the considered view that as no Departmental Enquiry is pending against the petitioner, the State Government is not justified in withholding the leave encashment/ unutilized earned leave of 300 days due payable to the petitioner. This court is also of the considered view that the judgment and order dated 29-03-2022 passed by a Division Bench of this court in W.A. No. 17 of 2022 squarely covers the issue raised in the present writ petition.

[8] In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to take necessary action for releasing the benefits due payable to the petitioner for the unutilized earned leave of 300 days as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from today.

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.

                                                      JUDGE

Devananda




WP(C) No. 304 of 2020                                              Contd.../-