"Cruelty Case By Daughter-In-Law Not Related To Official Duty": Rajasthan HC Grants Retiral Benefits To Deceased Govt Employee's Heirs After 21 Yrs

The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to the heirs of a deceased government employee whose retiral benefits were suspended by the government pursuant to the filing of a case under Section 498A, IPC against his son and all other family members including himself by his daughter in law.

The Court held that retiral benefits awarded at the time of superannuation cannot be subject to suspension upon an alleged criminal offence when the said offence was not related to the official discharge of the duties.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain was hearing a petition filed by a retired government employee who had an allegedly exceptional and unquestionable service record. However, pursuant to his retirement, his daughter-in-law committed suicide and her brother filed a case under Section 498A, IPC against the petitioner's son and all other family members including the petitioner himself.

The trial resulted in a conviction which was later suspended. Consequently, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the government ceased the pension and the retiral benefits of the petitioner under Rule 6(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 (“the Rules”). This was further approved by the governor under Rule 7 of the Rules.

Rule 6 of the Rules provides for the suspension of pension if the pensioner was convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that Rule 7 of the Rules was applicable only where the pensioner was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, however, since the FIR against the petitioner was filed after his retirement, hence Rule 7 was not applicable to the case. Furthermore, the counsel contended that there was no relation between the offence and the retiral dues.

The Court, after considering arguments from both sides, observed that since no hearing opportunity was provided to the petitioner, the provision of Rule 6(3) was violated which requires serving upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken against him and the ground too. Furthermore, the Court held that the offence did not fall under the ambit of 'serious crime' or 'grave misconduct' as required under Rule 6.

The Court also highlighted that Rule 6 required 'conviction' of the alleged offence which was missing in the present case since the conviction order was suspended.

The Court further opined that if the alleged charges do not have any relation with the performance of official duties, then the offence could not be grounds for withdrawal of pension benefits. It said:

“The alleged charges pertaining to a family dispute or any other dispute which does not have reasonable nexus with performance of official duties, is not a valid ground for suspension of the retiral benefits of the petitioner.”

In this background, the Court stated that Rule 6 or 7 of the Rules held no relevance to the present case since these were misinterpreted by the authorities. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the Court directed the government to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner to his heirs.

Title: Raghuveer Narayan v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 164

Click Here To Read/Download Order