Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Kakkar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049508
-1-
CWP-25169-2022
2024:PHHC:049508
255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.25169 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision:10.04.2024
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Kakkar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Wazir Singh, Advocate
for the petitoner.
Mr. Pankaj Midda, Addl.AG, Haryana.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the
petitioner is that though he has already retired from service on attaining the
age of superannuation on 30.09.2021 but all his retiral benefits have not
been released to him which is causing prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the
respondents be directed to release his pensionary benefits as there is no
impediment in releasing of the said benefits.
2. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed reply and has
conceded the fact that the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 30.09.2021 and there is no disciplinary proceedings
pending though, the same are still contemplated even as of now by the
department to be initiated against the petitioner. Learned State counsel
submits that there is an FIR which is pending against the petitioner, being
FIR No. 394 dated 18.08.20021 and keeping in view the pendency of the
said FIR, the respondents are well within its jurisdiction to withhold certain
pensionary benefits when read with Rule 81 of Haryana Civil Service
(Pension) Rules, 2016.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049508
CWP-25169-2022 2024:PHHC:049508
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
4. It may be noticed that the employer has a right to withhold
certain pensionary benefits in case any disciplinary proceedings or any
criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. The pendency of the
disciplinary proceedings has already been explained by Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India while passing order in case titled as "Union of India Vs.
K.V. Jankiraman", 1991 (4) SCC 109. As per Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, in case a charge sheet has been served upon a delinquent employee in
a departmental proceedings, the disciplinary proceedings can be stated to be
pending against the said employee. Similarly, with regard to the criminal
proceedings, in case charges have been framed against an employee by a
competent Court of law, criminal proceedings are deemed to be pending
against the said employee.
5. In the present case, relevant paragraph of the said judgment is
as under:
"6. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the
sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be
said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held
that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or
a chargesheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee
that it can be said that the departmental proceed- ings/criminal
prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover
procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-
sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to
that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the
sealed cover procedure. "
6. Though the criteria mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India are not fulfilled in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as
it is a conceded position that no departmental proceedings is pending against
the petitioner even as of now, much less at the time when the petitioner
retired on 30.09.2021. With regard to the criminal proceedings in FIR No.
394 dated 18.08.2021, it is conceded that no charges have been framed
against the petitioner, even as of now.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049508
CWP-25169-2022
2024:PHHC:049508
7. That being so, the pensionary benefits admissible to the
petitioner could not have been stopped.
8. Further, the same question of law came up for consideration
before the Division Bench in LPA No.314 of 2023 and it has already been
held that in case there was no disciplinary proceedings pending or criminal
proceedings pending in terms of the judgment of K.V. Jankiraman's case
(supra), the pensionary benefits could not have been withheld. Learned
counsel for the respondents has not been able to rebut the said factual aspect
as well as the settled principle of law.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised contention that
even if a complaint is pending before the Vigilance, the Rule 81 of 2016
Rules permits the Department to withhold the pensionary benefits, hence
pendency of FIR is enough to withhold the pensionary benefits.
10. In the present case, the FIR in question against the petitioner
was not registered by the Department dealing qua any allegation in respect
of any official duty but is an outcome of a private dispute between the
petitioner and the complainant. Keeping in view the fact that even when the
charges have not been framed in the said FIR so as to prima facie come to
the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the allegation alleged, it will be
too much to say that the respondents are within their jurisdiction to withhold
the pensionary benefits. Rule 81 of 2016 Rules only deals with the working
of an employee while discharging the official duty hence, the same cannot
be imported to any FIR which is pending so as to hold that mere pendency
of an FIR will be a reason to withhold the pensionary benefits of the
petitioner and that too by ignoring the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in K.V. Jankiraman's case (supra).
11. In the present case, the next question is whether the petitioner is
entitled for grant of interest. As per the judgment of the Full Bench in "A.S.
Randhawa v. State of Punjab and others,1997(3) SCT 468" , an employee
is entitled for the release of pensionary benefits within a period of 02 months
in case there is no impediment. Where, the pension has not been released
within the time frame, the employee is held entitled for grant of interest to
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049508
CWP-25169-2022 2024:PHHC:049508
compensate. The relevant paragraph in the judgment of Full Bench in case
"A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab and others" is as under:
" Since a government employee on his retirement becomes
immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the
Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure
the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retirer in
proper time. As to what is proper time will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two
months from the date of retirement which time limit has been laid
down by the Apex Court in M. Padmanabhan Nair's case (supra). If
the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby
denying to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his money,
there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be
compensated and, in our opinion, the only way to compensate him is
to pay him interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due
to him on the date of his retirement."
12. Similarly, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that where
an amount belonging to an employee has been retained by the Department to
their favour, the employee becomes entitled for grant of interest. The
relevant portion of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in "J.S. Cheema v. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355" is
as under:
" The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact that
one person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that
sense rent for the usage of money. If the user is compounded by any
negligence on the part of the person with whom the money is lying it
may result in higher rate because then it can also include the
component of damages (in the form of interest). In the
circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of the State
it cannot be denied that money which rightly belonged to the
petitioner was in the custody of the State and was being used by it."
13. In the present case, it has already been held that on the date
when the petitioner retired on 30.09.2021, there was no valid justification
with regard to withholding of the pensionary benefits. That being so, it has
to be held that there is no impediment in the release of the pensionary
benefits as on 30.09.2021 and it is a conceded position that those pensionary
benefits were not released within a period of two months, hence, keeping in
view the settled principles of law, as cited hereinbefore, the petitioner
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049508
CWP-25169-2022
2024:PHHC:049508
becomes entitled for grant of interest so as to compensate him for the
prejudice caused.
14. Accordingly, the pensionary benefits be released alongwith
interest @6% per annum to the petitioner, from the date the amount becomes
due till the date of its realization within a period of 08 weeks of receipt of
copy of this order.
15. Liberty is granted to the respondent-Department in case, they
have valid claim to obtain the reimbursement of the interest granted to the
petitioner from any other Department.
16. Disposed of accordingly.
10th April, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Sonia Puri JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No.
5 of 5
