Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr.Shyam Lal Thukral vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 7 September, 2012
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CWP No.21915 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.21915 of 2010
Date of Decision:07.09.2012
Dr.Shyam Lal Thukral .....petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab & Ors. .....respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr.B.S.Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
****
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA J.(ORAL):
The petitioner, who was working on the Post of Senior Medical Officer, Department of Health and Family Welfare, State of Punjab, retired on 31.10.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. The present writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondent authorities for releasing his retiral benefits in the nature of leave encashment, gratuity, commutation of pension etc. There is no dispute as regard to the fact that during the pendency of the present petition, the entire retiral benefits have since been released. The details thereof are: leave encashment and gratuity were paid on 18.05.2012 and the commutation of pension has been paid on
02.03.2012.
In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted that FIR No.425 dated 05.08.2006, under Section 4,5,6,23 and 29 of PNDT Act, was registered at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, against the petitioner. It has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the investigation in pursuance to the registration of the FIR are still continuing. A stand has been taken that the retiral benefits have not CWP No.21915 of 2010 2 been released to the petitioner immediately upon his retirement in the light of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume-II. It has not been controverted before me that no departmental proceedings were either initiated against the petitioner or were pending on the date, the petitioner superannuated.
Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules reads in the following terms:
"2.2(b) The Government further reserves to themselves the right to withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and right of ordering the recovery from the pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government. If in a departmental or judicial proceedings, the petitioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon reemployment after retirement."
A reading thereof clearly indicates that the disciplinary authority, consequent upon the result of the departmental or judicial proceedings, should record a finding whether the delinquent has committed grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including the service rendered upon reemployment after retirement."
In terms thereof, the Government has power to withhold or withdraw pension or for the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government only if departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings are pending in respect to a grave misconduct or negligence and where there is an apprehension of loss caused to the government as a consequence of such misconduct or negligence.
CWP No.21915 of 2010 3
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that in the facts of the present case, there is no allegation against the petitioner with regard to any misconduct or negligence which could be attributed to him. Neither is there any allegation of causing loss to the Government.
In the light of Rule 2.2(b) mere pendency of criminal proceedings would not be sufficient to withhold the retiral benefits of the petitioner. In taking such view this Court finds support from judgment dated 25.05.2011 passed by the co-ordinate Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 20529 of 2006 titled as Darshan Singh versus State of Punjab & anr.
The petitioner, who had retired on 31.10.2009 has been released his retiral benefits/pensionary benefits only in the month of March/May 2012. The retiral benefits which had become due to him immediately on his date of superannuation could not have been delayed. It is well settled that pension is not a bounty but is a deferred payment of salary. Even though, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner have since been released in full and the present petition to that extent has been rendered infructuous but the same is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay the statutory interest on the delayed payment of gratuity i.e.with effect from the date of retirement till the disbursal of the same. The petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 6 % per annum on the balance retiral benefits w.e.f. 01 January, 2010 till the date of actual release to him.
Petition stands disposed of.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 07.09.2012 neenu