2023 (3) TMI 377 - HC - Indian Laws

Refusal to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of the petitioner so as to enable him to get his full pension after his superannuation on 31.10.2017 - refusal to release the leave encashment and gratuity payable - the only reason on which the petitioner has been denied his terminal benefits and full pension, is that, in a Special Audit conducted for the Punjab Bhawan, for the period between 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, some irregularities were pointed out - HELD THAT - Once it is an admitted position that, even after five years since the petitioner s superannuation neither any criminal proceedings, nor any departmental proceedings, have been initiated against him, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondents in withholding the petitioner s terminal dues. An employee after rendering long years of service, especially like the petitioner, who was even granted extension after he reached the prescribed age of superannuation and worked at the respondent organisation for 33 years, looks forward to receiving his terminal benefits and pension which would give him some succour in his old age. In the present case, however, it is the respondent s own case that some objections were raised in the report pertaining to the Special Audit conducted in 2006, and the relevant file which formed the basis for raising allegations on the petitioner s conduct, was, according to the respondents, misplaced and resurfaced again in May 2017. There is no explanation by the respondents as to why, once the file, even as per the respondents, resurfaced in May, 2017, no finality has been given to the Special Audit Report.There is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondents in not completing the exercise regarding the Special Audit to arrive at a final decision in respect of the petitioner, even after a period of five years since his superannuation. The petitioner, who is already in the evening of his life, cannot be left to wait endlessly for the respondents to complete their purported Special Audit exercise, and that too when even as per the own stand of the respondents, the audit report was furnished in 2006 itself. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) for full pension after superannuation
2. Refusal to release leave encashment and gratuity
3. Delay in settling financial irregularities from a Special Audit conducted in 2006

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a General Manager, sought to quash the order denying NOC for full pension post superannuation. The respondent cited irregularities from a 2006 Special Audit as the reason for withholding benefits. The petitioner argued that no departmental proceedings were initiated within five years of superannuation, as per Rule 2.2(b) of Punjab Civil Service Rules, thus entitling him to full pension immediately. The court found the respondent's delay unjustified, emphasizing the petitioner's long service and the need for timely release of terminal benefits. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the release of the differential pension amount with interest and issuance of necessary NOC within eight weeks.

2. Additionally, the petitioner contested the denial of leave encashment and gratuity. The respondent justified the withholding based on unresolved issues from the 2006 audit report, which resurfaced in 2017. The court criticized the respondent for the prolonged delay in addressing the audit findings and ordered the release of all terminal dues to the petitioner within the specified timeframe. The petitioner was directed to file an affidavit undertaking to repay any recoverable amount as per law.

3. The judgment highlighted the respondent's failure to conclude the Special Audit matters despite the audit report being available since 2006. The court noted that the petitioner, being in the twilight of his career, should not be made to wait indefinitely for the resolution of audit-related issues. The court, therefore, allowed the writ petition, quashed the previous orders, and instructed the prompt release of terminal benefits to the petitioner. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely settlement of employee dues and pension entitlements, especially for long-serving employees like the petitioner.