Withholding Retiral Benefits Due To Pending Criminal Case Unrelated To Employee's Official Duties Violates Right To Life: Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court ruled that withholding retirement benefits of an employee only on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings which had nothing to do with the official duties was unjustified and violative of right to life because these were the sources by which the employee arrange for their necessities post retirement.“The pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits are the...
Rajasthan High Court ruled that withholding retirement benefits of an employee only on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings which had nothing to do with the official duties was unjustified and violative of right to life because these were the sources by which the employee arrange for their necessities post retirement.
“The pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits are the earnings of an employee for the services rendered by him/her with the department. Taking away or withholding such benefits after retirement amounts to depriving the petitioner from the right to life because the retrial benefits are the sources by which the petitioner and her family arrange for their bread and other necessities.”
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing a petition by a government employee who served the department for more than 37 year but when she retired, her pension and other retirement benefits were withheld by the Government since she had a pending criminal case against her under Section 306, IPC.
The petitioner was appointed as a librarian in 1985. In 2000, she was convicted in a case of abetment to suicide by the trial court against which she had filed an appeal which was pending for final adjudication. When she retired in 2022, all her retiral benefits were withheld by the department on the ground that the same shall be subject to the final outcome of the criminal appeal.
The petitioner submitted a representation to the department seeking provisional pension to her in accordance with law, however, no heed was paid to such request. Hence, the present petition was preferred by the petitioner.
It was the case of the counsel for the petitioner that she had served the department for 37 years without being subjected to any departmental proceedings for any misconduct pertaining to her official duties. It was submitted that withholding retiral benefits was violative of right to life of the petitioner since she had no other source of income for livelihood and was facing great financial hardship.
After perusing the material on record, the Court aligned with the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and assessed Rule 90 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 which provides for provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceedings may be pending. The Court ruled that the words “judicial proceedings” in the Rule could not be treated as the proceedings unrelated to the official duties of functioning of the employee in his/her office.
The Court also referred to 2 coordinate bench decisions of the Rajasthan High Court. In Mahesh Chandra Soni v. State of Rajasthan & Ors it was held that the pension and gratuity could not be withheld due to proceedings unrelated to the official duties.
Furthermore, in H.R. Choudhary v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors it was held that pendency of an appeal against conviction under Section 306, IPC was not enough to withhold full pension and doing so was arbitrary and illegal.
In this background, the Court observed that the criminal case against the petitioner had no nexus with her official duties, rather it was a family dispute. Furthermore, the unblemished service record of 37 years of the petitioner was also highlighted by the Court.
The Court held that,
“the basic object behind crediting the benefit of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits is that after retirement when an employee is of an old age, may not face any financial problem for his/her livelihood or necessities… Only on account of pendency of a criminal proceedings and that too with regard to the offence under Section 306 of IPC, which has nothing to do with the official duties, in no manner can be said to be justified.”
Accordingly, it was ruled that the petitioner was entitled for provisional pension and the petition was disposed of.
Title: Smt. Sunita Dixit v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 316