Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash Devi vs State Of Punjab And Others on 29 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013629
-1-
CWP-14021
14021-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
257 CWP-14021-2022 (O & M)
Date of decision: 29.01.2025
Subhash Devi
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present : None for the petitioner.
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.
(through hybrid mode)
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the
respondents to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of retirement
to the petitioner on the gratuity amount released on 01.10.2019.
2. The petitioner, who has since superannuated on 31.08.2012
31.08.2012,
while in service of the respondent-Department,
respondent Department, was implicated in FIR
No.19 dated 13.06.2007, under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police
Station Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar and corruption case No.3 dated
04.02.2008, however, acquitted on 17.12.2009
17.12.2009. An appeal against
acquittal being CRM-M-636-2010
CRM was prefer
preferred by the State of Punjab,
which was admitted on 20.01.2011
20.01.2011 and pending. In the written statement,
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013629
CWP-14021
14021-2022
reference is made to the fact that the gratuity amount was not released on
account of registration of the aforesaid FIR.
3. While addressing a congruent llegal issue of restricting the
retiral benefits in case of an appeal against acquittal having been filed, the
same was found to be fundamentally flawed in Faquir Chand vs. State
others CWP-3177-2009
of Haryana and others, 2009 and Banwari Lal vs. State of
Haryana and others,
o CWP-4032-2009,
2009, disposed of vide a common
judgment dated 13.11.2009, LPA against which stands dismissed
observing that a finding of guilty is a prerequisite for invoking the
provisions of the Rules to withhold or discontinue pension or pensionary
benefits. An appeal against acquittal, by no means or interpretation,
equates to a conviction justifying such deprivation. Relevant paras
whereof read thus:
"5. The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.4032 of
2009 had joined the Government service as Sah Sahayak
Patwari and has retired on superannuation on
31.7.2006. The petitioner war implicated for an
offence under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. He, however, was acquitted of this
charge on 27.2.2007. The State has filed a criminal
appeal against this order, which is pending before this
Court. His pensionary benefits were not released,
though no judicial or other proceedings are pending
against him as on date. The petitioner made a
representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal.
Principall Secretary, Haryana Government, Revenue
Department, has issued a letter on 21.10.2008 directing
the Deputy Commissioner to release the retiral benefits
of the petitioner but still no action was taken. The
petitioner has only been paid his provident fund
whereas
hereas other retiral benefits have not been paid. He
has accordingly filed this writ petition.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013629
CWP-14021
14021-2022
6. Here also, there is not much dispute in regard to the
factual position and the respondents have justified
their action of withholding the pensionary benefits on
the ground of pendency of criminal case and it is stated
that the decision for payment of pension and gratuity
shall be taken after the final decision in the criminal
case. It is, however, stated that the petitioner has also
been served a charge sheet under Section 7 of the
Haryana Punishment and Appeal Rules but the
competent authority has taken a decision to pend the
matter till final decision of the Court in criminal case.
Accordingly, it is stated that the petitioner is not
entitled to the release oof his pensionary benefits.
7. Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, learned counsel for the
petitioner has based his arguments primarily on the
bare provisions of the Rule. Rule 2.2 of the Rules
provides that future good conduct is the implied
condition for grant of pensi
pension and the competent
authority has a right to withhold or withdraw pension
if the person is convicted of a serious crime or being
guilty of great misconduct. The provisions of Rule 2.2
are as under :-
xxx xxx xxx
8. The learned counsel would term the action of the
respondents in withholding his pension to be wholly
illegal as pension or pensionary benefits can only be
withheld or discontinued upon conviction of a serious
crime as is given in Rule 2.2 of the Rules reproduced
above. In support of his su submission, the counsel has
referred to Manohar Singh v. Punjab State
others, 2006(2) SCT 103. The
Electricity Board and others
Division Bench of this Court while interpreting
somewhat similar provision made by Electricity
Board, has viewed that action to withhold gratuity etc.
can only be invoked where departmental or judicial
proceedings are initiated under clause (b) of Rule 2.2
or are continued under clause (1) of proviso thereto.
Rule 2.2 of the Rules applicable to Electricity Board
makes the right to withhold pension dependent on
finding of guilt of a grave misconduct or negligence
during the service. While interpreting this Rule, the
Court observed that the bare perusal of the Rule would
show that it can be invoked if in a departmental or
judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of
great misconduct or negligence during the service. The
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013629
CWP-14021
14021-2022
Court further opined that the respondents could not
invoke Rule 2.2 (b) on the ground that criminal case is
still pending against the petitioner. The Court held that
sine-qua-non
non for invoking Rule 2.2 (b) is that the
petitioner has been found guilty in a departmental or
judicial proceedings which had continued after the
superannuation of the employee. While so holding, the
Court relied upon another decision of this Cour Court in
High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Amrit Singh Singh,
1995 (2) SCT 613 wherein it was observed as under:under:-
xxx xxx xxx
9. Reference is also made to the ratio of law laid down
in this regard in the case of Atam Bodh Sharma v.
State of Haryana and other others, 2006(4) SCT 760,
where a similar view was taken and judgment in the
case of Manohar Singh (supra) was noticed with
approval. Reference made by Mr. Rathi to a Full
Bench decision in the case of Dr. Ishar Singh, Ex.
Principal, Punjab Govt. Dental College & Hospital,
Amritsar v. State of Punjab, through the Secretary
to Government, Department of Health & Family
Affairs, Chandigarh and others others, 1994(1) SCT 563:
1999(3) (1993?) Punjab Law Reporter 499, does not
directly deal with the issue involved in the pres
present writ
petition and as such, would not be applicable to the
facts of the present case.
10. In Civil Writ Petition No. 3177 of 2009, no
departmental proceedings are being held against the
petitioner. He is only facing criminal prosecution. It is
possible to view that the proceedings under Rule 2.2
(b) of the Rules can only be initiated on conclusion of
criminal trial and if the petitioner is found guilty of the
charge preferred against him under Section 306 Indian
Penal Code. The provisions contained in ot other clauses
can not be read in isolation and as already held by this
Court, the continuation of the criminal case can not
deprive the petitioner of the benefit of death death-cum-
retirement gratuity. In Civil Writ Petition No. 4032 of
2009, apparently there is nno justification to either
withhold pension or pensionary benefits, once the
petitioner therein has been acquitted of the charge
preferred against him under the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The finding of guilty is a sine
sine-qua-non
for invoking the provision
provisions of the Rules to withhold or
discontinue pension or pensionary benefits. Merely
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013629
CWP-14021
14021-2022
because the State has filed an appeal against the order
of acquittal would not mean that this acquittal can be
taken as a conviction to withhold or withdraw the
pensionary benefits. Concededly, the departmental
proceedings initiated against the petitioners have been
held in abeyance to await the decision in the criminal
case. That would also, therefore, not give any
justification to the respondents not to release the
pensionary benefits to the petitioners.
11. The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed.
Directions are issued to the respondents to release the
entire retiral benefits of the petitioners. Let the needful
be done within a period of three months from the date
of receipt
ipt of certified copy of this order. There shall be
no order as to costs."
4. Stressing on the importance of granting pension, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1
SCC 429, held that, "Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be
distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but
have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and
property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and
disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of
interest at the current market rate till actual payment."
5. Given the authoritative rulings in A.S. Randhawa vs. State
of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468 and Vijay L. Mehrotra vs.
UP 2001(9) SCC 687, it is irrefutable that a retiree is rightfully
State of UP,
entitled to compensation for delayed disbursement, best remedied by
awarding interest on the outstanding sum from the date of superannuation,
especially in the absence of any legitimate justification for the deferment.
Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa (supra) underscored that
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013629
CWP-14021
14021-2022
upon retirement, a government employee acquires an immediate right to
pension and allied benefits, imposing a duty on the State to facilitate their
disbursement within a reasonable
reasonable period, ideally not exceeding two
months. Failure to do so entitles the retiree to compensation via interest.
Similarly in J.S. Cheema vs. State of Haryana
Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil)
355, the Court likened such interest to "rent for the usage of money" that
rightfully belonged to the petitioner but was unjustly retained and utilized
by the State.
6. Any unwarranted delay in disbursing pension and other
retiral benefits, a vested right, necessitates recompense through interest,
not merely as compensation for the deprivation suffered but as redress for
the undue advantage wrongfully accrued to the respondents, serving as
reparation rather than a penalty.
7. In wake of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of
with a directive to the respondents to pay interest @ 6% per annum to the
petitioner on the gratuity amount from the date it fell due till 30.09.2019.
Needful be done within a period of three months.
29.01.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
6 of 6
