Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (10) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2013 (10) TMI 294 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Whether the State Government can withhold a part of pension and/or gratuity during the pendency of departmental/criminal proceedings in the absence of any provision in the Pension Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Withholding Pension and Gratuity During Pending Proceedings

Facts and Background:
The respondent, an employee in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, was facing criminal charges and departmental proceedings for alleged financial irregularities. Upon retirement, the State of Jharkhand withheld 10% of his pension, salary for the suspension period, leave encashment, and gratuity pending the outcome of these proceedings. The respondent challenged this action, leading to a series of legal battles culminating in the present appeal.

High Court's Decision:
The High Court ruled against the State, directing the release of the withheld dues, citing the Full Bench decision in Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of Jharkhand, which stated:
- Under Rule 43(a) and 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, there is no power for the Government to withhold Gratuity and Pension during the pendency of proceedings.
- The circular issued by the Finance Department referring to withholding leave encashment has no legal sanctity.

Arguments by the State:
The State, represented by Senior Counsel, argued that administrative instructions could fill gaps in the Pension Rules, allowing for withholding of pension and gratuity, based on the legal precedent set by Sant Ram Sharma vs. Union of India.

Supreme Court's Analysis:
The Supreme Court rejected the State's argument, clarifying that:
- Administrative instructions can supplement but not supplant statutory rules.
- Gratuity and pension are earned benefits and are considered "property" under Article 300A of the Constitution, which cannot be taken away without due process of law.
- Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules allows withholding or withdrawing pension only after a finding of grave misconduct in concluded proceedings, not during pending proceedings.
- The right to receive pension is a valuable right vested in a government servant, as established in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar and reaffirmed in subsequent judgments.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that:
- There is no statutory provision for withholding pension or gratuity during pending proceedings.
- Executive instructions without statutory backing cannot justify withholding pension or gratuity.
- The appeals were dismissed with costs, reinforcing the principle that pension and gratuity are protected rights under the law.

Judgment Summary:
The Supreme Court confirmed that the State Government cannot withhold a part of pension and/or gratuity during the pendency of departmental/criminal proceedings in the absence of explicit provisions in the Pension Rules. The decision underscores the constitutional protection of pension as a property right, which cannot be deprived without due process of law. The appeals were dismissed, and the respondent was entitled to the withheld dues.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates