Manipur High Court
Thingom Joychandra Singh vs The State Of Manipur on 17 February, 2023
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2023.02.24 11:45:49 +05'30'
Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP (C) No. 380 of 2019
Thingom Joychandra Singh, aged about 63 years, S/o
Th. Tombi Singh, resident of Chingamakha Irom Leirak,
P.O. Imphal, P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District,
Manipur- 795001.
... PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Principal
Secretary, Social Welfare (SW),Govt. of Manipur,
Secretariat Building, Babupara, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795001.
2. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner, Finance,
Government of Manipur, Secretariat Building,
Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795001.
3. The Under Secretary (Pension Cell), Government
of Manipur, Secretariat Building, Babupara, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur -
795001.
4. The Director, Social Welfare Department,
Government of Manipur, North A.O.C., P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
WP(C) No. 380 of 2019
Page |2
5. The Union of India through the Accountant
General, Manipur, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
... RESPONDENTS
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner :: Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. L. Raju, Adv.,
Mr. U. Augusta, Adv.,
For the Respondents :: Mrs.Ch. Sundari, GA
Mr. S. Samarjeet, Sr.PCCG
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 30.01.2023
Date of Judgment & Order :: 17.02.2023
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
pay the due entitled monthly pension and gratuity to the
petitioner with interest at 6% per annum.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was serving
as Deputy Director (WP) under Social Welfare Department,
Government of Manipur and retired on attaining the age of
superannuation with effect from 29.2.2016 AN vide Government
Order dated 25.6.2016 issued by the Deputy Secretary (SW)
WP(C) No. 380 of 2019
Page |3
and the said order indicates payment of gratuity will be subject
to the completion of vigilance case pending against the
petitioner. According to the petitioner, the vigilance case has
been closed and the Director of Vigilance Department had
issued the integrity certificate stating that no case is pending
against the petitioner.
3. Further case of the petitioner is that he has not
involved in the alleged misappropriation and he was dragged in
the vigilance case and his pension was withheld without any
valid reason. Despite submission of the relevant documents for
payment of pension in favour of the petitioner and also
clearance of the vigilance case against him, the petitioner was
not paid his entitled monthly pension and gratuity. Hence, the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. The first respondent State filed affidavit-in-
opposition stating that vide letter dated 19.8.2019, the Deputy
Secretary (SW), Government of Manipur wrote a letter to the
Accountant General informing that the High Powered
Committee, in a meeting held on 6.8.2019, had closed the
enquiry against the petitioner. Further, the Director of Social
Welfare wrote a letter dated 20.9.2019 to the Senior Accountant
WP(C) No. 380 of 2019
Page |4
Officer/Pension, Accountant General, Manipur to complete and
release pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner.
5. The third respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition
stating that the office of the third respondent received pension
papers in respect of the petitioner from the Under Secretary,
Social Welfare vide their letter dated 8.2.2017 and the same
has been forwarded to the office of the Accountant General
(A&E), Manipur vide letter dated 17.2.2017. Therefore, the third
respondent is nothing to say in this writ petition.
6. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) filed
affidavit-in-opposition inter alia stating that the office of the
Accountant General only implements the decisions of the State
authorities taken in accordance with law pertaining to GPF,
pension and gazette entitlement. Thus, the Principal
Accountant General/Accountant General is not responsible for
the administrative function/decision of the State authority
except for compliance of the decision of the State authority
taken in accordance with law pertaining to GPF, pension and
gazette entitlement.
WP(C) No. 380 of 2019
Page |5
7. Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, the senior counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner was serving as Deputy
Director (WP) under Social Welfare Department, Government
of Manipur till 25.6.2016 when he was allowed to retire from
service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect form
29.2.2016 and in the said order dated 25.6.2016, it has been
specifically stated that payment of his gratuity would be subject
to the completion of the Vigilance Case No.1/SP-V/2015
pending against him.
8. The learned senior counsel further submitted that
to consider the alleged misappropriation of money and its
recovery to the tune of Rs.90,67,371/- from the petitioner and
six officials in the Social Welfare Department as per the
recommendation of the State Vigilance Commission, a High
Powered Committee was held on 5.11.2018 and the Committee
after consideration of the report submitted by the Secretary,
Social Welfare Department, came to the conclusion that the
financial irregularities are not fully established with regard to the
petitioner.
9. Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, the senior counsel for the
petitioner urged that even though the enquiry of the High
WP(C) No. 380 of 2019
Page |6
Powered Committee was closed and no vigilance case pending
against the petitioner, the respondents, particularly the first
respondent, failed to issue sanction order for payment of the
pension to the petitioner and harass the petitioner by
withholding his entitled pension till date. Now the petitioner is
suffering untold miseries due to want of entitled monthly
pension and gratuity. Thus, a prayer has been made to direct
the respondents to pay the entitled monthly pension and
gratuity to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum.
10. Mrs. Ch. Sundari, the learned Government
Advocate appearing for the first respondent State submitted
that the Director of Social Welfare, Manipur, vide letter dated
20.8.2019 addressed to the Senior Accounts Officer/Pension
reminded that all pension papers which have been sent in
respect of the petitioner vide letter dated 4.1.2017 remain
unchanged and necessary arrangement for payment of pension
and other retirement benefit in full may be done accordingly.
Thus, the pension papers are pending with the Senior Accounts
Officer/Pension and the first respondent has nothing to do with
the pendency of the pension papers.
WP(C) No. 380 of 2019
Page |7
11. This Court considered the rival submissions and
also perused the materials available on record.
12. The petitioner who was serving as Deputy Director
(WP) under the Social Welfare Department, Government of
Manipur retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation with effect from 29.2.2016 vide order dated
25.6.2016 issued by the Deputy Secretary (SW), Government
of Manipur. In the said order dated 25.6.2016, it has been
stated that payment of gratuity will be subject to completion of
vigilance case pending against the petitioner. According to the
petitioner, no vigilance case is pending against the petitioner
and to that effect the Director of Vigilance, Government of
Manipur had also issued integrity certificate.
13. The withholding of the entitled pension and other
benefits of the petitioner by the respondent is on account of the
alleged misappropriation of money and its recovery to the tune
of Rs.90,67,371/- from 7 officials in the Social Welfare
Department.
14. Since the petitioner has been denied the entitled
monthly pension and gratuity, earlier, the petitioner has filed
WP(C) No. 380 of 2019
Page |8
W.P.(C) No.696 of 2017 for issuance of the writ of mandamus
directing the respondents therein to pay him his entitled monthly
pension and gratuity with accrued arrears within a stipulated
time. By the order dated 12.10.2018, the said writ petition was
disposed of and the operative portion of the order reads thus:
"[7] Accordingly, the instant writ petition
stands disposed of in terms of the said order
dated 24.7.2017 passed by this Court with
the direction that any enquiry pending
against the petitioner shall be concluded
within 6 (six) months failing which the
petitioner shall be entitled to pension and
pensoinary benefit which will be subject to
any order that may be passed by any
competent authority or forum. It is further
directed that petitioner be granted provisional
pension as per rule within a period of 3
(three) months from today making it clear that
any such retiral benefit which may be
provisionally paid will be subject to any order
that may be passed on conclusion of the said
enquiry or any order that may be passed by
the competent authority/Court."
15. At this juncture, by referring to the Minutes of the
Meeting of the High Powered Committed dated 5.11.2018, the
WP(C) No. 380 of 2019
Page |9
Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Committee has closed the enquiry in respect
of the alleged misappropriation. The learned counsel for the
petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the report of
the Director of Vigilance, Manipur dated 22.7.2017 and
submitted that no vigilance case is pending against the
petitioner.
16. On a perusal of the integrity report of the Director
of Vigilance, Manipur dated 22.7.2017, it is seen that no
vigilance case is pending against the petitioner. Since the
enquiry of the High Powered Committee closed and integrity
certificate was issued by the Director of Vigilance certifying that
no vigilance case pending against the petitioner, there is no
reason in not paying the entitled monthly pension and gratuity
to the petitioner.
17. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that gratuity and pension are not bounties and an employee
earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and
unblemished service.
WP(C) No. 380 of 2019
P a g e | 10
18. Right to receive pension is recognized as a right in
property and a person cannot be deprived of his pension without
authority of law, which is constitutional mandate enshrined in
Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
19. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dhirendra Pal
Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 94, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
pension and gratuity are not any bounty to be distributed by the
Government to its employees on retirement but are valuable
rights in their hands and any culpable delay in disbursement
thereof must be visited with penalty of payment of interest.
20. In the case on hand, though the integrity certificate
was given on 22.7.2017 stating that no vigilance case is
pending against the petitioner, the High Powered Committee
had given its recommendation for closure of the enquiry only on
5.11.2018. The first respondent wrote a letter to the Senior
Accountant Officer/Pension, Accountant General, Manipur (as
per paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition) to complete and
release pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner
on 20.8.2019. The aforesaid would show that there is no delay
on the part of the respondent State in processing the pension
papers. In fact, the pension papers of the petitioner was
WP(C) No. 380 of 2019
P a g e | 11
received by the office of the first respondent from the Under
Secretary, Social Welfare and the same has been forwarded to
the office of the Accountant General (A&E) vide letter dated
17.2.2017 by the Under Secretary, Pension Cell, Government
of Manipur. Therefore, the question of awarding interest in this
case does not arise.
21. Since the first respondent wrote a letter to the
Senior Accounts Officer/Pension, Accountant General, Manipur
to complete and release regular pension and other retirement
benefits of the petitioner, the non-payment of the entitled
benefits to the petitioner is highly inappropriate. Therefore, the
authorities concerned are duty bound to pay the entitled
pension and gratuity to the petitioner.
22. In the result,
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The respondents are directed to
pay the entitled pension and
gratuity to the petitioner within a
period of two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
WP(C) No. 380 of 2019
P a g e | 12
(iii) If the respondent authorities failed
to pay pension and gratuity within
the period indicated above, the
same shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from due
date.
(iv) There will be no order as to costs.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sushil
WP(C) No. 380 of 2019
