Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhola Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 April, 2024
2024:PHHC:044450
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044450
CWP-22117-2019 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
111 CWP-22117-2019
Date of Decision: 03.04.2024
Bhola Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate and
Ms. Amarpreet Kooner, Advocate the petitioner
Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent No.3 to forthwith release
pension and other retiral dues.
2. The petitioner is a retired police officer. During service, he was
implicated in FIR No.225/2012 under Sections 120, 223, 225, 328 and 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Sarai
Rohilla, Delhi. During the pendency of trial, he retired on 31.01.2018. The Trial
Court vide judgment dated 17.08.2018 found four persons guilty of alleged
offence and vide order dated 20.08.2018 released three officers, who were in
service, in terms of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The petitioner had
retired, thus, the Court found it appropriate to impose fine of ₹25,000/-. The
respondent has withheld pension as well as other retiral dues of the petitioner.
The respondent initially withheld benefits on the ground that trial is pending,
however, at present dues are withheld on account of pendency of present writ
petition.
1 of 2
2024:PHHC:044450
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044450
3. Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate submits that respondent has concededly
withheld retiral dues of the petitioner on account of pending trial and at present
after conclusion of trial, dues are withheld on account of pendency of present
writ petition.
4. Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab fairly
concedes that as per reply and official communications, the retiral dues of the
petitioner are withheld on account of pendency of present writ petition.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for both sides and
perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Concededly, the petitioner along with three other police officers
was implicated in afore-stated FIR and all the officers were held guilty. The
officers in service were released on probation, however, petitioner was
subjected to fine of ₹25,000/- because he had already retired. As trial has
concluded, the respondents are bound to determine retiral dues of the
petitioner. The respondent is bound to determine entitlement of the petitioner
qua retiral dues in accordance with law and cannot keep pending for indefinite
period.
7. In view of above discussion and findings, the present petition is
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide question of retiral
dues of the petitioner within three months from today.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
03.04.2024
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
