Telangana High Court
A.Pandu vs The State Of Telangana on 24 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.7185 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services for
respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5 and Sri K. Bala Krishna, learned
Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents
to release full pension to the petitioner and retiremental
benefits to the petitioner in pursuance of his retirement on
31.05.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was initially appointed as Office Subordinate on
24.09.1992 in the Office of B.T.O., Devarakonda.
Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as a Cashier in the
year 2000, as a Junior Accountant in the year 2006, as a
Senior Accountant and finally promoted as a Sub Treasury
Officer and after serving the department for about 32 years, he
retired from service on 31.05.2024 on attaining the age of
superannuation and while he was in service, he was not issued
with any charge memo and no disciplinary proceedings were
pending against him.
3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner had two daughters and one son. The name
of the second son of the petitioner is Alle Shiva Kumar and his
marriage was performed on 27.02.2016 with one Bhanusree.
After the marriage, she was not living properly with the son of
the petitioner. She had always an intention to create problems
not only to her husband but also to all the family members.
Taking advantage of the criminal procedure code, she lodged a
false complaint before the P.S. Miryalaguda, on 04.07.2018.
The said case was registered as FIR No.104 of 2018 of P.S.
Miryalaguda, under section 498(A) and 506 of IPC and Section-
3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that petitioner is no way concerned with the said criminal case
and it was registered way back in 2018 and still the matter is
pending for consideration before the Trial Court and under the
guise of pendency of the said criminal case, the respondent
authorities are not paying the full pension to the petitioner and
did not release he commutation of pension and gratuity payable
to the petitioner and to that effect they issued a Memo
No.H1/2673/2024, dated 10.06.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
petitioner was sanctioned 75% of the normal pension and only
25% is not released due to pendency of the criminal case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that
the respondents have no authority to withhold the pension and
pensionery benefits payable to the petitioner on the ground of
pendency of criminal case registered against him under Section
498-A IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of
Rajasthan High Court in Mahesh Chandra Soni Vs. State of
Rajasthan and others 1 wherein it was held as under:
"19. In the case of Sau Sheela Rameshchandra Bargaje vs.
The Administrative Officer, Municipal Education Board &
Anr., writ petition No.12817 of 2017, the High Court of
Bombay has observed as under:-
"18. In our view, the criminal proceedings filed at the
instance of the daughter-in-law of the petitioner under
2024:RJ-JP:10576
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and other related
provisions against the petitioner have nothing to do with the
employment of the petitioner with respondent nos. 1 and 3.
If any criminal proceedings would have been filed and
pending investigation relating to the employment of the
petitioner with the respondent no.1, the situation would
have been different. The principle laid down by this Court in
case of Shrikant Ramchandra Inamdar (supra) applies to
the facts [2024:RJ-JP:10576] (17 of 19) [CW-14891/2023] of
this case. We do not propose to take any different view in
the matter."
20. In the present case, the petitioner has served with the
respondents for about 38 years with an unblemished
service record as nothing has been brought before this Court
by the respondents that his conduct was ever found to be
inappropriate during the whole service tenure. The pension,
gratuity and other retiral benefits are the earnings of an
employee for the services rendered by him with the
respondents. Taking away or withholding such benefits
after retirement amounts to depriving the petitioner from the
right to life because the retiral benefits are the sources by
which the petitioner and his family arrange for their bread
and other necessities.
21. On consideration of the law, referred in the above paras,
a convicted candidate for the offences in regard to the
family disputes can also be given appointment and after his
appointment he will also earn the service benefits which he
will get on his retirement. Whether any appointment of such
a person can deprive him from the retiral benefits after his
retirement, the answer would be no.
6. In the present case, the petitioner has served with the
respondents for about 32 years with an unblemished service
record as nothing has been brought before this Court by the
respondents that his conduct was ever found to be
inappropriate during the whole service tenure. The pension,
gratuity and other retiral benefits are the earnings of an
employee for the services rendered by him with the
respondents. Taking away or withholding such benefits after
retirement amounts to depriving the petitioner from the right
to life because the retiral benefits are the sources by which the
petitioner and his family arrange for their bread and other
necessities. The petitioner rendered an unblemished service as
he was not issued with any charge memo and no disciplinary
proceedings are pending against him; except the above
criminal case, as such, the petitioner is entitled to full pension
and other retiral benefits from the respondents.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion and in view of the ratio
laid down in the above judgment, no person shall suffer
starvation, especially retired employees, based on the pendency
of a criminal proceedings, which is strictly confined to his own
family members and personal issues, the authorities have no
right to stop the full pension of the retired employee. Thus, the
respondent authorities are directed to release full pension and
other retiremental benefits in accordance with law, within a
period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in
this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 24.03.2025
BDR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
DATE: 24.03.2025
BDR
