Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 294 - SC - Indian LawsWithholding of Pension - Departmental/ Criminal Proceedings - Whether in the absence of any provision in the Pension Rules, the State Government can withhold a part of pension and/or gratuity during the pendency of departmental/ criminal proceedings - Held that - The order dated June 12, 1968 denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1)of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 was maintainable - It may be that under the Pension Act there was a bar against a civil court entertaining any suit relating to the matters mentioned - That does not stand in the way of a Writ of Mandamus being issued to the State to properly consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law. The right of the petitioner to receive pension was property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same - Similarly, the said claim was also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it was not saved by Sub-article (5) of Article 19. For the purposes of quantifying the amount having regard to the period of service and other allied matters, it may be necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect, but the right to receive pension flows to an officer not because of the said order but by virtue of the Rules - The Rules clearly recognise the right of persons like the petitioner to receive pension under the circumstances mentioned. Whether the pension granted to a public servant was property attracting Article 31(1) came up for consideration before the Punjab High Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Union of India 1962 (1) TMI 55 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT - such a right constitutes property and any interference will be a breach of Article 31(1) of the Constitution - It was further held that the State cannot by an executive order curtail or abolish altogether the right of the public servant to receive pension. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which was the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution - It followed that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced - It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions were not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as law within the meaning of aforesaid Article 300A - On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold - even a part of pension or gratuity - so far as statutory rules were concerned, there was no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there been any such provision in these rules, the position would have been different.
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.
|