Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1440 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. B. L. Yadav

2001-09-11

A.K.PARIHAR, A.R.LAKSHMANAN

body2001
Honble LAKSHMANAN, CJ.–Heard Shri Manish Bhandari, for the appellants; and Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, for the respondent. (2). The State of Rajasthan and Director & Special Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Government of Rajasthan, are the appellants. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein, Banwari Lal Yadav, with the following prayers:- ``(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction respondents may be directed to finalise the pension case of the petitioner within a time which the Honble Court may prescribe. In the meanwhile petitioner may be granted an interim pension and respondents may be directed to award the same to the petitioner. (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to pay pension to the petitioner, according to the Rules prescribed for this purpose, and my further be directed to grant the arrears of pension to the petitioner since his retirement along with interest 18% p.a. (iii) The respondents may be further directed to make the payment of the entire amount of general provident fund to the petitioner and may also be directed to make the payment of earned leave benefit and gratuity after determination thereof. (iv) Any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and necessary in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be awarded and cost also may kindly be awarded. (3). A prayer, claiming interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum, for delayed payment, was also made. (4). The grievance of the respondent herein, was that the respondents therein and the appellants herein, were going against the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred as ``RSR) and were not following the provisions in the said rules, while withholding the amounts of his pension, provident fund, gratuity, earned leave etc. According to him, nothing was due against the petitioner, on account of any reason whatsoever and that if the amount is found due against him, by the judicial authority, after proper adjudication, the respondent shall not hesitate to make the payment, without any delay, but without any adjudication of the amount, it is submitted that the appellants are not empowered to do something, which has not been authorised or permitted by any law. A learned Single Judge of this Court, vide his order dated 31.8.98, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants herein, to grant the respondent, the benefits of his pension, provident fund, gratuity and earned leave, within three months from the date of the said order. The learned Judge has also awarded interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. (5). The State of Rajasthan has preferred the present appeal. (6). According to Shri Manish Bhandari, the respondent has committed an act of embezzlement of an amount of Rs.2,73,000/- and has also failed to give account for the same, in respect of fodder distribution and that thus, in the absence of submission of accounts, after deducting the quantity of `Chheejat of fodder, the same remained unac- counted for and, therefore, the respondent- petitioner was not given his retiral benefits. (7). We have perused the entire pleadings and the documents, placed before us, including the judgment of the learned Single Judge. (8). Our attention was also drawn to the relevant rules in the RSR. As already noticed, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent, while he was the Local President of Gram Sewak Employees Association, the then Block Development Officer had developed certain ill-will against the respondent herein and with a view to harassing him, he came out with a story that some amount of the Panchayat Samiti, Khetri, was due against the respondent herein, in order to prolong his pension-case and to deprive him to the amounts of his provident Fund, gratuity, earned leave salary etc. (9). We have considered the rival contentions and perused the records. (10). According to the State Government, on the basis of the inspection-report, the amount was found due against the respondent herein. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the inspection-report cannot be said to be final adjudication of any controversy whether or not the amount was actually due. It is also pointed out by the learned Single Judge, and rightly so, in our opinion, that this controversy can be resolved only in judicial proceedings, or by initiating a departmental enquiry. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the respondent herein, and no enquiry whatsoever was ever conducted in the matter and, therefore, it could not be said that the respondent had misappropriated any amount. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the respondent herein, and no enquiry whatsoever was ever conducted in the matter and, therefore, it could not be said that the respondent had misappropriated any amount. There is no explanation as to how such an amount was also found due from the respondent. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent placed before us a ``no-dues certificate, issued by the Development Officer, which document was also a part of the record before the learned Single Judge, at the time of hearing the writ petition. The respondent also placed all the receipts before the learned Single Judge. (11). Rule 170 of the RSR, deals with recoveries of losses from the pension. This rule clearly says that pension amount etc. can be withheld, if it is proved in a departmental enquiry or judicial proceeding that the Government servant (the respondent herein) is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence, during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re- employment, after retirement. Such departmental proceeding ought to have been initiated, while the officer was in service. Clause (b) of Rule 170 says that such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place, as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings, in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer, during his service. (12). In the instant case, as already noticed, no departmental proceedings were ever instituted, while the respondent was in service and before his retirement. It was also not instituted later on, with the sanction of the Governor also. In the instant case, the petitioner retired on superannuation, on 13.9.93. As per sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Rule 170, the departmental proceedings cannot be instituted in respect of any event, which took place more than 4 years before such institution. Since no departmental proceedings were ever instituted in this case, question of withholding the pension and other retiral benefits, does not arise. As per sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Rule 170, the departmental proceedings cannot be instituted in respect of any event, which took place more than 4 years before such institution. Since no departmental proceedings were ever instituted in this case, question of withholding the pension and other retiral benefits, does not arise. In this case, the pension and other benefits, which are lawfully due to the respondent herein, have been withheld by the State of Rajasthan, without any justifiable reason. The respondent, who has retired from the service, has also been denied use of his pensionary benefits. Therefore, in our opinion, the respondent should be sufficiently compensated by awarding interest. The learned Judge has allowed the writ petition of the respondent herein, with 18 per cent interest. We, therefore, award the interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum, which, in our opinion, is just and reasonable, from the date of filing of the writ petition, till the date the pensionary benefits are paid to the respondent. The State of Rajasthan shall pay the entire pensionary benefits, to the respondent herein, within two months from today.