Supreme Court Judgement: Withholding of Pension or Gratuity
C.A. No.6770/2013 @ SLP (C) No. 1427 of 2009
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6770 OF 2013
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1427 of 2009)
State of Jharkhand & Ors.
….. Appellant(s)
Vs.
Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr.
…..Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 6771/2013
(arising out of SLP(C) No. 1428 of 2009)
JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J
1.Leave granted.
2. Crisp and short question which arises for consideration in these cases is as to 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? The High Court has – answered this question, vide the impugned judgment, in the negative and hence directed the appellant to release the withheld dues to the respondent.
Not happy with this outcome, the State of Jharkhand has preferred this appeal.
3. For the sake of convenience we will gather the facts from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 1427 of 2009. Only facts which need to be noted, giving rise to the aforesaid questions of law, are the following:
The respondent was working in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. He joined the said Department in the Government of Bihar on 2.11.1966. On 16.4.1996, two cases were registered against him under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging serious financial irregularities during the years 1990-1991, 1991-1992 when he was posted as Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi. On promulgation of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, State of Jharkhand (Appellant herein) came into existence and the Respondent became the employee of the appellant State. Prosecution, in respect of the aforesaid two criminal cases against the respondent is pending. On 30th January, 2002, the appellant also ordered initiation of disciplinary action against him. While these proceedings were still pending, on attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent retired from the post of Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi on 31.08.2002.
As per the than provision of pension regulation 1990 of Rajasthan warehousing corporation we opt the CPF scheme assuming that in future the pension fund will be exhausted. we individually and union level requested management to allow us the second chance of option but not allowed. After my retirement in 2007 when pension fund exhausted and pension stopped, RSWC change the pension regulation.in 2010 to facilitate the pension adopted employes. If is was cleared in 1990 than we also opt the pension scheme can it be challenged now.