Punjab-Haryana High Court
Indraj Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 3 August, 2006
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was originally filed by Indraj Singh, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents to release his retiral benefits along with interest @ 12% per annum. Indraj Singh, unfortunately, expired during the pendency of the writ petition. However, his legal representatives, namely, his widow and son (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) were brought on record vide order dated 16.8.2002. Shorn of the details, the facts may be summarized as follows:
Indraj Singh joined the Irrigation Department as a Clerk in the year 1966 and was later on promoted as Assistant Revenue Clerk. While he was posted as a Reader with the Land Acquisition Collector at Patiala, a criminal case under Section 419, 467, 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(C) and 13 (1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against him along with his co-accused on 21.9.1996. He was placed under suspension. Indraj Singh was due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.5.1998. Pending trial in the criminal case, respondent No. 5 being the competent authority, passed an order dated 27.5.1998 (Annexure P-2) whereby Indraj Singh was reinstated in service w.e.f. 30.5.1998 (afternoon) and he was then retired from service on 31.5.1998 vide order of the even date (Annexure P-3). Indraj Singh, however, was not paid the retiral benefits, except provisional pension, on the ground that he was facing trial in a corruption case. Alleging that his remaining retiral benefits could not be withheld due to pendency of the criminal case, he filed this writ petition.
2. The respondents have put in appearance and filed their reply dated 22.1.2001 asserting that the petitioner was not entitled for the pensionary benefits except 'provisional pension' and GPF, which had already been released to him vide order No. 26 dated 22.12.2000 (Annexures R-1 and R-2). It is also not disputed by Learned Counsel for the parties that the arrears of GPF were actually paid to the petitioner on 22.12.2000 (vide receipt Annexure R-3/T), though according to the petitioners, a part of the GPF account was withheld, therefore, the payment vide receipt Annexure RII/ T was received "under protest".
3. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record.
4. There is no denial to the fact that Indraj Singh died on 17.3.2002. It is also an admitted fact that trial in the criminal case was still pending on that date, and as such proceedings in the criminal case stood abated and collapsed against Indraj Singh due to his death.
5. It is also not disputed by Learned State Counsel that no disciplinary action was taken against Indraj Singh before his retirement and obviously no order of punishment of any kind was ever passed against him. From the above stated facts it, thus, emerges that since Indraj Singh died during pendency of the trial in the criminal case and his remaining retiral benefits were withheld only because of pendency of the said case, the petitioners are entitled to be paid all the retiral benefits admissible to their predecessor-in-interest (Indraj Singh) on the assumption as if nothing adverse could be proved or established against the deceased employee. For the reasons aforesaid, the petitioners are held entitled for all the post-retiral benefits to which deceased Indraj Singh would have been entitled to, had he been exonerated of the criminal charges.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners then contended that since the respondents have withheld the retiral benefits for more than eight years, the petitioners are entitled to be paid interest @ 12% per annum. In my view, so long as Indraj Singh was alive and was facing trial in a corruption case, the respondents were justified in withholding the release of some of the retiral benefits and no liability to pay interest can be fastened on them for the said period. However, after the death of Indraj Singh on 17.3.2002 and when the criminal trial qua him stood collapsed and abated, there appears to be hardly any justification to withhold the retiral benefits admissible to the deceased employee and/or his legal representatives. Consequently, while allowing this writ petition, the respondents are directed to release all the post-retiral benefits including full pension/ family pension admissible to petitioner No. 1, the balance of GPF, if any, gratuity, leave encashment and/or any other retiral benefit, to which the deceased employee is found entitled to. The arrears of full pension/family pension and all other retiral benefits shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In addition, the petitioners shall also be paid interest @ 6% per annum with effect from 1.5.2002 till the actual payment of the arrears, referred to above.
7. No order as to costs.