Telangana High Court
Mohd. Qayum, vs The State Of Telangana, ... on 4 September, 2023
Bench: J Sreenivas Rao
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.43313 and 43668 of 2017
COMMON ORDER:
These two writ petitions are filed seeking writ of mandamus
declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing full pension,
gratuity, leave encashment etc., to the petitioners, in spite of acquittal
of the petitioner in W.P.No.43668 of 2017 in C.C.No.8 of 2008 and
C.C.No.10 of 2008 and the petitioner in W.P.No.43313 of 2017 in
C.C.No.10 of 2008 by the competent ACB Court, vide judgments dated
08.04.2013 and 26.05.2017 respectively, as illegal, arbitrary and
violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart
from Rule 52 of the Pension Rules.
2. Heard Sri P.Ravi Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioners,
and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of
the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in
W.P.No.43668 of 2017 was appointed as Junior Instructor in the year
1966, thereafter promoted to various stages and finally retired as
Assistant Apprentice Advisor (Assistant Director) on attaining the age
of superannuation on 31.07.2000. While the petitioner was working as
Principal of ITI (boys), Nizamabad, Crime No.11/ACB-NZB-2000 was
registered under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the P.C. Act') and
thereafter charge sheet has been filed and the same was taken on file
and numbered as C.C.No.8 of 2008 and in the said case, petitioner was
acquitted and the said judgment has become final. Similarly, another
crime was registered with similar charges against the petitioners and
one Gnaneshwar vide Crime No.13/ACB-NZB/2000 under Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act read with under Section
34 IPC, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2.
3.1. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.43313 of 2017 was appointed
as Junior Assistant in the year 1978 and thereafter he was promoted
as Senior Assistant and retired on attaining the age of superannuation
29.02.2012. While the petitioner discharging his services, Crime
No.13/ACB-NZB/2000 was registered under Section 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act read with under Section 34 IPC, wherein
the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.3.
3.2. The investigation officer filed charge sheet and the same was
taken on file vide C.C.No.10 of 2008. Learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that learned Special Judge under the Prevention
of Corruption Act for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of
Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department Etc., Nampally,
Hyderabad, (hereinafter called 'Special Court" for brevity) taking into
consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record passed the
judgment in C.C.No.10 of 2008 on 26.05.2017 acquitting the
petitioners.
3.3. He further submits that though the petitioners were retired from
services on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2000 and
2012, due to the pendency of the ACB case before the Special Court
vide C.C.No.10 of 2008, the respondent authorities have not released
the retirement benefits viz., pension, gratuity, leave encashment,
commutation of pension and other accrued service benefits.
Petitioners have approached the respondents and produced copy of the
above said judgment and in spite of the same, they have not released
the retirement benefits, only on the alleged ground that pendency of
Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2017 before appellate Court.
3.4. He vehemently contended that the respondents are not entitled
to withhold the retirement benefits mere pendency of the criminal
appeal and the same is contrary to law as well as Pension Rules. In
support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.27607 of 2009 and batch dated
28.01.2010, wherein it is held that the Government has no power to
withhold the pension/retirement benefits on the ground of pendency of
criminal appeal and the same is contrary to Rule 52 of the Pension
Rules.
4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submits that
questioning the judgment passed by the Special Court, the
complainant therein filed Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2017 and the
same is pending before this Court and the respondents have rightly
withhold the retirement benefits and till the disposal of the criminal
appeal, the petitioners are not entitled to claim the relief as sought in
the writ petitions.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it clearly
reveals that the petitioners have retired from the services on attaining
the age of superannuation i.e., 29.02.2012 and 31.07.2000
respectively, and the respondents are not released the pension,
gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension and other accrued
service benefits due to pendency of Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2017.
6. It is very much relevant to mention here that the Special Court
after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on
record passed the judgment in C.C.No.10 of 2008 by giving cogent
findings and acquitted the petitioners for the offences under Sections
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act read with Section 34 IPC
on 26.05.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant/State filed
Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2017 and the same is pending before this
Court. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.27607 of 2009 and
batch dated 28.01.2010 after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court specifically held that the respondents therein are not
entitled to withhold the pension and retirement benefits merely
pendency of the criminal appeal before appellate Court and the same is
contrary to law. The principle laid down in the above said judgment is
squarely applicable to the present case on hand. Hence, the action of
the respondents withholding retirement benefits gratuity including
pension of the petitioners is liable to be declared as illegal and contrary
to law.
7. For the foregoing reasons as well as the law laid down by this
court, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to
release the pension, gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of
pension and other accrued service benefits, etc., to the petitioners as
per their entitlement, within a period of three (3) months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions
shall stand closed. No costs.
______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 04.09.2023
mar
