While emphasising that pension is not bounty, gratuity, or ex-gratia payment dependent on the employer’s will, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the release of the long-pending pension and retirement benefits of a 79-year old retired employee (petitioner), who was earlier denied the same on the grounds that a criminal case and disciplinary proceedings alleging misconduct were pending against him.
Justice Harinath N referred to a Memo of 2003 issued by the State, which fixed an upper limit for a period of suspension as two years, whereafter the employee is entitled for reinstatement. Reference was also made to Rule 9 of the Revised Pension Rules which empowers the Government to withhold or withdraw pension or gratuity if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service.
Owing to the fact that in the present case, more than two years had passed since the suspension of the petitioner, and that the criminal case and departmental proceedings against him were not concluded, the Single-Judge held,
“The disciplinary proceedings were initiated after four (04) years from the retirement of the petitioner. As on date, there is nothing on record to show the status of the said departmental enquiry. The criminal case is also pending from the year 2008 onwards and during the pendency of the criminal case five (05) of the arrayed accused passed away. The respondents cannot be justified in withholding the service benefits, terminal benefits and pension to the petitioner solely on the ground that the departmental enquiry is pending and the petitioner is facing trial in the criminal case.”
“… the petitioner is only alleged to have committed offences in a crime registered in the year 2004 and, as on date, he has not been held guilty of any of the charges either in the criminal case or in the departmental proceedings. As such, the respondents could not have withheld his terminal benefits and pension pursuant to his retirement on 31.08.2006. The irrational acts of the respondents are endangering the fundamental right to life of the petitioner”, the Court added.
Background
The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt (Respondent 2), and was later promoted to the post of Superintendent. After being in service for roughly 36 years, a criminal case under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, alleging cheating (Section 420), and offences relating to forgery (Sections 468, 471, 473 and 474) were registered against him in 2004, consequent to which he was placed under suspension. While departmental proceedings were initiated against him on similar allegations, the proceedings were never concluded. The petitioner attained superannuation in 2006 while both— the criminal case, and the department proceedings were pending against him.
Despite retirement, the respondents withheld the petitioner’s terminal benefits including pension and gratuity, citing pendency of the criminal case and departmental proceedings. While the petitioner had filed representations before the authorities seeking release of retiral benefits, no relief was granted in that regard.
Aggrieved, he approached the High Court where he submitted that the action of the respondents in withholding his terminal benefits and pension was illegal and arbitrary, and violated his constitutional rights under Articles 14, 16, 21, and 300-A. He further argued that pendency of criminal case and departmental proceedings do not constitute ground to deny retiral benefits, particularly when no guilt has been established in either of the instances. He added that the fact that the departmental enquiry neither commenced nor concluded for several years had caused great hardship to him, particularly in light of the fact that he was aged and had lost his wife and son, and was sustaining himself without any source of livelihood or pensionary benefits.
In contrast, the Respondents submitted that owing to the pendency of the criminal case and departmental proceedings, the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits.
Rejecting the stand of the respondents, the Court allowed the petition and directed release of terminal benefits and full pension together with arrears within 8 weeks.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 30653 of 2014
Case Title: B.RAMAIAH v. THE GOVT OF AP and Another