Research › Browse › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 58 (HP)

PADAM NATH v. MANAGER UCO BANK

1997-03-21

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, M.SRINIVASAN

body1997
JUDGMENT M.Srinivasan, C. J. (Oral) :- The petitioner was ex-servicemen in the Infantry. He was receiving pension since, 1978. He was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge on 6.7.1993 and sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine of Rs. 5000/-. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed and the petitioner for Special Leave in the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 9.12.1994. 2. In the meanwhile, the petitioners pension was withheld by the respondents on the ground that he was convicted and sentenced to the imprisonment. The respondents has placed reliance upon rule 82 Pension Regulations Part II (1961) and para 29.1 of Pension Payment Instructions (1973). 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have not applied their mind before withholding the pension under the said provisions. The matter is res integra. The question has been considered by the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Yadav v. Union of India & Anr (1989 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 565). 4. In that case also the petitioner before the Supreme Court was employed in the Army as soldier and getting pension of Rs. 108/- per mensem on superannuation. He was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded imprisonment for life. His pension was stopped under the provisions of para 29.1 of Pension Payment Instructions (1973) under Regulation 119 of Pension Regulations Part I (1961). The Supreme Court while setting aside the order withholding pension directed the respondents therein to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- per mensem as pension to the petitioner therein and observed as follows :- "4. There provisions require the competent authority to apply its mind to the question as to whether the pension should be suspended in whole or in part. While determining this question the Disbursing Officer has to consider the nature of the offence, the circumstance in which offence might have been committed and other allied matters. The office has also to consider the lordship on the dependants of the person, if the payment of pension is suspended. While determining this question the Disbursing Officer has to consider the nature of the offence, the circumstance in which offence might have been committed and other allied matters. The office has also to consider the lordship on the dependants of the person, if the payment of pension is suspended. In the instance Case, the impugned order does not show that the competent authority applied its mind to the question as to whether the whole or a part of the pension should be suspended, instead, the authority mechanically issued orders for the suspension of the entire amount of pension should be suspended, instead, the authority mechanically issued orders for the suspension of the entire amount of pension for the period of imprisonment of the petitioner." 5. The reasoning of the Supreme Court in that case will apply in the present case. The orders passed by the respondents do not disclose whether they applied their mind before passing the order. The final order passed by the CCDA (Pension) dated 24.1.1997 (Annexure R-III) during the pendency of the writ petition is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the officer for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the judgment aforesaid. The officer may consider the position of the petitioner in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court and decide the question afresh within a period of 12 weeks from this date. 6. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.