Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Abdul Bari Khan vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 November, 2014
Author: Ishan Chandra Das
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas, Ishan Chandra Das
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
P R E S E N T:-
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.
And
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ishan Chandra Das.
W.P.S.T. NO. 98 OF 2012
Abdul Bari Khan
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioner: - Mr. K.N.Nabi., Advocate
For the State:- Mr. Joytosh Majumdar, Advocate
Heard on :- 31.10.2014
Judgment delivered on :. 10.11.2014
Ishan Chandra Das, J. :
The petitioner in the W.P.S.T. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India dated March 23, 2012 is questioning an order of West Bengal Administrative Tribunal dated December 21, 2011, which is quoted below:-
"Affidavit of service is filed. Let it be kept with the record. The present application is filed with a prayer for retiral benefits of the present petitioner who has retired from the service on 30-6-2010. It appears from the averments of the present application that one Criminal Case is pending against the present petitioner and that Criminal Case was started during the service period of the present petitioner and as per DCRB Rules, the authority has approved the interim allowances and that information is annexed by the petitioner at page 49 of the present application. When the Criminal Case is pending, there is no scope to pass any order giving effect to the retiral benefit and pension. The petitioner is entitled to get interim allowances as per Rule 14 of the DCRB. The present application is disposed of accordingly.
Plain Copy."
The petitioner was working as Amin in the office of the Block Land & Land Reforms Office under the Land & Land Reforms Department of the Government of West Bengal. In connection with a criminal case he was arrested on March 7, 2010 by the policemen of Tehatta police station and on the following day, i.e. on February 8, 2010, he was released on bail.
During pendency of the criminal case the petitioner reached the age of superannuation and was superannuated on June 30, 2010. By a letter dated September 13, 2010 the competent authority directed that in view of the pendency of the criminal case, he should be granted interim allowance according to the provisions of rule 14 of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971.
Rule 14 of the rules is quoted below:-
"A Government servant who retires from service but against whom criminal proceedings involving moral turpitude are pending in a court of law, shall not be sanctioned any pension until the termination of the criminal proceedings. An interim allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the pension that would have been admissible but for the criminal proceedings may be granted during the pendency of such proceedings in cases of hardship. If he is convicted on a criminal charge involving moral turpitude he shall not be entitled to any pension; compassionate allowance may be granted subject to the same terms and conditions as laid down in rule 12."
The petitioner contended that he was entitled to all terminal benefits including pension. Referring to rule 14 of the rules, the respondents informed him that because of the pending criminal case, he was entitled to only interim allowance. The respondents, accordingly, granted him interim allowance. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner moved the Tribunal by filing the OA.
Relying on the decisions in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330 and State of Jharkjhand & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastave & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 3383, Mr. Nabi appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner's right to get the terminal benefits and pension was his right to property within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the respondents could not deny him the benefits citing pendency of the criminal case.
Appearing for the state, Mr. Majumdar has submitted that the rules applicable to the petitioner's case empowered the respondents to pay the petitioner only interim allowance.
In our opinion, the two decisions relied on by advocate for the petitioner are of no assistance in this case. In this case rule 14 of the rules specifically provides that during pendency of the criminal case, the respondent cannot sanction the petitioner any pension. Hence it is wrong to say that the respondents are not authorized not to pay the petitioner pension during pendency of the criminal case. There is no reason to say that anything done by the respondents has infringed the petitioner's right to pension, a property under Article 300A.
For these reasons, we are of the view that the WPST is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. We, accordingly, dismiss the WPST.
We make no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be supplied to advocates for the parties upon compliance with all formalities.
(Ishan Chandra Das, J.) I agree.
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. :