Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2269 (PNJ)

Rattan Singh v. State Of Haryana

2019-08-13

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. In the present writ petition, the grievance which is being raised by the petitioners is that they have not been granted the benefit of commutation of pension and their gratuity has not been released though they have already retired from service in June 2008, January, 2010 and March, 2013 respectively. 2. In the present writ petition, petitioners have stated that there is nothing against them except one criminal case, which was registered against them vide FIR No. 13 of 2008 under Sections 342, 218, 120-B IPC which is pending in CBI Court at Panchkula. As per the petitioners, no charges were framed against them and hence they pray that withholding of their gratuity as well as not allowing them the benefit of commutation of pension by the respondents is illegal and a direction is sought by the petitioners to the respondents for releasing the gratuity and also extending them the benefit of commutation of pension. 3. Upon notice of motion, reply has been filed by the respondents. In the reply, respondents have stated that one Vinod Kumar was kept in illegal custody by the petitioners where he died. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 21.08.2008 in CRM No. M-38572 of 2005 titled as Surender Vs. State of Haryana and others, directed CBI to register the case and investigate the matter and in compliance of the order passed by this Court, C.B.I. has registered a case No. RC-13/57/2008/SCB/Chd. under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, which is still pending adjudication in C.B.I. Court, Panchkula. The stand of the respondents is that under the provisions governing the service for the grant of gratuity as well as commutation of pension, in case any criminal proceedings are pending, no benefit of commutation of pension can be given and the gratuity can be withheld till the conclusion of the judicial proceedings. The relevant portion of the reply is as under:- "2. The relevant portion of the reply is as under:- "2. That the brief facts of the case are that in the year 2005, a regular departmental inquiry was initiating against SI Rattan Singh No. H/160, petitioner No. 1, SI Ram Mehar No. 320/Jind, ASI Sat Pal Singh No. 283/Jind, petitioner No. 2 ASI Satyawan No. 84/BWN, petitioner No. 3 and HC Sohan Singh No. 857/Jind on the allegations while they were posted at Police Station, Safidon on 03.04.2005 at about 12/12.30 p.m. Harbel Singh s/o Banta singh Jat Sikh and Malkhan Singh s/o Dhan Raj r/o Geeta colony Safidon came in the police station, Safidon and produced Vinod Kumar @ Baba s/o Nafe Singh r/o Sardana District Jind before ASI Sat Pal Singh No. 238/Jind, the petitioner No. 2 and HC Sohan Singh No. 857/Jind in the Police Station, Safidon and it was told that Vinod Kumar @ Baba had tried to snatch the chain of a women near Railway Road. They left Vinod Kumar in the police station saying that they will bring with them that woman from whom chain was snatched. After sufficient time neither that lady nor any other person came in Police Station in this regard. Vinod Kumar @ Baba was illegally detained in the Police Station from 03.04.2005 to 05.04.2005. ASI Satyawan Singh, the petitioner No. 3 prepared a kalandra u/s 109 Cr.P.C. Against Vinod Kumar @ Baba to save themselves and produced him in the Court of SDM, Safidon. On 05.04.2005, SDM, Safidon had discharged Vinod Kumar @ Baba in this Kalandra and keeping in view of the ill health of Vinod Kumar @ Baba he directed the police officials to get admit him in Hospital immediately. During the treatment doctor referred the patient Vinod Kumar @ Baba from GH, Safidon to PGI Rohtak. While Vinod was being taken to PGI Rohtak in an ambulance he was expired in the way. In this regard case FIR No. 100 dated 07.04.2005 under Section 302 IPC was registered at Police Station, Safidon. During the course of investigation of the case the cause of death Vinod Kumar @ Baba was found natural and section 302 IPC was removed and Section 342 IPC was inducted in this case regarding illegal detention of Vinod Kumar from 03.04.2005 to 05.04.2005 in the Police Sation, Safidon. During the course of investigation of the case the cause of death Vinod Kumar @ Baba was found natural and section 302 IPC was removed and Section 342 IPC was inducted in this case regarding illegal detention of Vinod Kumar from 03.04.2005 to 05.04.2005 in the Police Sation, Safidon. The Inquiry officer submitted his report holding guilty of the charges the petitioners and SI Ram Mehar No. 320/Jind was exonerated of the charges. The then Superintendent of Police, Jind the Punishing Authority concurring with finding report of the Inquiry Officer vide order dated 15.07.2006 imposed the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect upon the petitioners. 3. That besides above-mentioned departmental inquiry a separate case FIR No. 100 dated 07.04.2005 U/s 302 IPC was also registered at Police Station Safidon. As far as criminal case FIR No. 100 dated 07.04.2005 U/s 302 IPC Police Station Safidon is concerned, in this regard it is submitted that this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 21.08.2008 passed in Criminal Misc. No. M-38572 of 2005 titled Surender Vs. State of Haryana and others disposed of the petition with the direction to C.B.I. to register the case on the complaint dated 07.04.2005 of the petitioner and investigate the matter. In compliance with order dated 21.08.2008 passed by this Hon'ble Court in this petition the C.B.I. has registered case No. RC-13/57/2008/SCB/Chd. U/s 302/34 IPC, which is still pending adjudication in CBI Court. However, during pending this petition the National Human Right Commission, New Delhi has also directed the State Government to pay Rs. 2 lacs compensation to the next kin of the deceased Vinod Kumar. In compliance with directions of National Human Right Commission, New Delhi a sum of Rs. 2 lacs was paid to Smt. Santra Devi, wife of the deceased Vinod Kumar @ Baba. 4. That the petitioners namely SI Rattan Singh No. H/160, ASI Sat Pal Singh No. 283/Jind and ASI Satyawan No. 84/BWN, had been retired on superannuation retirement on 30.06.2008, 02.01.2010 and 21.03.2013, respectively. It is further submitted that the payment of retiral benefits i.e. Leave encashment, GIS, GPF and welfare fund have been made to the petitioners on different dates. 4. That the petitioners namely SI Rattan Singh No. H/160, ASI Sat Pal Singh No. 283/Jind and ASI Satyawan No. 84/BWN, had been retired on superannuation retirement on 30.06.2008, 02.01.2010 and 21.03.2013, respectively. It is further submitted that the payment of retiral benefits i.e. Leave encashment, GIS, GPF and welfare fund have been made to the petitioners on different dates. So far as payment of DCRG (Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity) and Commutation to pension have yet not been made to the petitioners because as per rule 9.15(1)(c) CSR Vol.-II no gratuity shall be paid to the Government employee until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. Relevant portion of the rule 9.15(1)(c) is reproduced as under:- "9.15(1)(c) :- No gratuity shall be paid to the Government employee until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon." So far as grant of commutation to pension is concerned, in this regard it is submitted that as per provision laid down in rule 11.1(3) of CSR Vol.-II, the government employee against whom judicial or a departmental proceeding has been instituted under rule 2.2(b) ibid, shall not be permitted to commute any part of his pension during the pendency of such proceeding. Relevant abstract of rule 11.1(3) of CSR Vol. II is reproduced as under:- "(3) If fraction of pension to be commuted results in fraction of rupees, such fraction of a rupee shall be ignored for the purpose of commutation; Provided that in calculating the amount of the uncommuted residue there may be added to it the uncommuted portion of any other permanent pension or pensions payable to the applicant from the revenues of the Punjab Government, any other State Government, or Central Government; Provided further that a Government employee against whom judicial or a departmental proceeding has been instituted or continued under rule 2.2 (b) ibid, shall not be permitted to commute any part of his pension during the pendency of such proceedings." In view of the facts and circumstances explained above, the petitioners have not paid the DCRG (Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity) and commutation to pension, till the decision of the criminal case pending against them as per settled law. Hence, the present petition of the petitioners is liable to be dismissed, on this score, with costs." 4. Hence, the present petition of the petitioners is liable to be dismissed, on this score, with costs." 4. No replication has been filed by the petitioners controverting the stand taken by the respondents. 5. I have gone through the paper book including the writ petition as well as the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. 6. The claim of the petitioners for the grant of benefit of commutation of pension is not made out keeping in view the provisions of Rules governing the service in that regard. According to Rule 11.1(3) of the Civil Services Rules Vol. II, an employee against whom a judicial proceeding is pending, is not permitted to commute any part of his/her pension during the proceedings. The said Rule as stated by the respondents in their reply has already been noticed and reproduced above. 7. Further, in respect of the gratuity, as per Rule 9.15(1) (c) of the Civil Services Rules, Vol. II, the Government is well within its jurisdiction to withhold the payment of gratuity. The said rule has already been reproduced above. 8. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the proceedings which were pending against the petitioner in respect of FIR No. 100 dated 07.04.2005 under Sections 302 IPC have come to an end or the petitioners have been exonerated in those proceedings. 9. Under these circumstances, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of commutation of pension to the petitioners upon their retirement and also with regard to withholding of their gratuity keeping in view the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 10. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out to grant the prayer as being made by the petitioners in the present writ petition. 11. Dismissed.