Telangana High Court
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs Mr Noyal Raj P.V. on 25 March, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.177 & 181 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
Regard being had to the controversy involved in the
aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being decided
by a common order.
The facts of W.A.No.177 of 2017 are reproduced as
under:-
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated
29.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.27653 of 2016.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the
respondent/writ petitioner was an employee serving Bharat
Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) and has attained the age of
superannuation on 24.03.2015. The respondent/writ petitioner
came up before the learned Single Judge by filing the writ
petition being aggrieved by the action of the employer in
withholding monthly pension from the date of retirement.
A detailed and exhaustive reply was filed by the employer. The
employer came up with a plea that the State Bank of Bikaner
and Jaipur has filed a criminal case against the
respondent/writ petitioner and therefore, in the light of Clause
11 of the B.H.E.L. Pension Scheme governing the field, the
employee is not entitled for pension. The learned Single Judge
has allowed the writ petition.
Paragraph Nos.4 to 10 of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge are reproduced as under:-
"4. Clause 11 of the B.H.E.L. Pension Scheme states :
"11(i) An employee against whom criminal
prosecution for moral turpitude is pending on the
date of superannuation will not be eligible for
Pension corpus till conclusion of trial. If
convicted, the employee will not be eligible for
Pension Corpus;
(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-clause (i), the employee shall however be
eligible for pension corpus on the date of
superannuation / death, if the criminal
prosecution has arisen out of bonafide discharge
of official duties and the company is defending
the matter."
5. A reading of the above clauses indicates that only if
the criminal prosecution initiated against an employee is
for an offence involving moral turpitude, the petitioners
would not be eligible for grant of pension.
6. Though there is a plea of cheating in the charge-
sheets initiated against the petitioners, essentially the case
of the Bank is that the loans availed of have not been paid
by petitioners.
7. Non-payment of a loan to a Bank cannot be said to
be an offence involving moral turpitude, and it is doubtful
if the prosecution initiated against petitioners on the said
basis would succeed or not.
8. Therefore, the stand of respondents that petitioners
would not be eligible for pension on the ground that there
is a criminal prosecution initiated against them for offence
involving moral turpitude cannot be sustained.
9. Therefore, the Writ Petitions are allowed with costs
of Rs.5,000/- each to be paid by 1st respondent within a
period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order; and the respondents are directed to release
the monthly pension to petitioners from the respective
dates of their retirement within a period of four (04) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any
in these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed."
The learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that
pension could not have been stopped in the method and
manner it has been done. The learned Single Judge has also
arrived at a finding that the criminal case certainly not at all
involved moral turpitude and it is only in case of an employee,
against whom criminal prosecution for moral turpitude is
pending on the date of superannuation, is not entitled for
pension.
The charge sheet of the criminal case is on record. The
same reveals that the respondent/writ petitioner has obtained
financial assistance from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur,
after availing financial assistance, he became irregular in
making repayment and there is an allegation that the property
which was purchased by availing financial assistance from the
Bank was sold. In those circumstances, the criminal case has
been filed by the Bank against the respondent/writ petitioner.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single
Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition. Pension is
certainly awarded to an employee on account of his good past
conduct as per rules and there is no allegation of any kind
against the respondent/writ petitioner involving moral
turpitude. Otherwise also, the dispute is in respect of loan
availed by the respondent/writ petitioner and therefore, the
learned Single Judge was justified in directing payment of
pension to the respondent/writ petitioner. In the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single
Judge.
Resultantly, the writ appeals stand dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
_______________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
25.03.2022
JSU
