Pension & Gratuity Of Employee Cannot Be Withheld Due To Proceedings Unrelated To Official Duties: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the pension and gratuity are earned by the employee and cannot be withheld due to proceedings unrelated to the official duties.

The Court was dealing with a civil appeal filed by a Librarian against the decision of her employer to withhold all her retiral benefits owing to her pending appeal in a case under Section 306 of IPC. 

The single-bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed, " The Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Mahesh Chandra Soni (supra) while dealing with the catena of judgments has held that the pension and gratuity are earned by the employee and cannot be withheld due to proceedings unrelated to the official duties."

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Prem Dayal Bohra and respondent was represented by General Counsel N.K. Mehta.

The petitioner who was appointed as Librarian in the respondent-department had a criminal case registered against her under Section 306 of IPC. She was convicted and sentenced in the same against which she duly appealed. The appeal was admitted and the sentence awarded to her was suspended. However, it remains pending final adjudication. Subsequently, the respondent-department suspended the petitioner while serving her a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 19582 for her conviction in a criminal case and for failing to inform the higher officer about the conviction as well as for her absence from service. Although she was reinstated following a court order but all her retiral benefits were withheld stating therein that the same would be subject to the final outcome of the criminal appeal filed by her. She submitted a representation for granting her provisional pension and benefits of services in accordance with law which went unanswered. Hence, the present petition.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that except the criminal case registered against the petitioner in the year 1996 for the offence 306 of IPC, she was never subjected to any departmental proceedings for any kind of misconduct pertaining to the official duties. It was also submitted that though respondent-department has withheld the retiral benefit and pension of the petitioner merely on account of pendency of a criminal appeal filed by her against the order of conviction, but the said appeal was admitted and her sentence was suspended by Court. He thus averred that withholding of retiral benefits including pension is violation of right to life of the petitioner because she has no other source of income for livelihood and as such she is facing great financial hardship. It was contended that the action of the respondent-department in withholding the retiral benefits including the pension is illegal. He cited Supreme Court verdict in State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. to buttress his submission.

On the other hand, Dy.G.C. appearing for the respondent-department submitted that the order impugned passed by the respondent-department is not illegal because Rule 6(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 19964 provides that the appointing authority may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw the pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct and in the present case, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section-306 of IPC by the learned trial court and sentenced to undergo six years’ rigorous imprisonment. Placing reliance on Supreme Court decision in Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., he argued that the petitioner has not placed on record any documentary evidence regarding her appointment, therefore, the writ petition filed by her may not be entertained due to lack of supporting documents. 

The Court at the outset pointed out that the respondent-department has not come with a case that the petitioner has ever been subjected to any kind of disciplinary proceedings or any disciplinary proceedings related to the official duties or misconduct are pending against her. 

In furtherance, the court rejected both the objections raised by the respondent-department.

"The objection raised by learned Dy.G.C. regarding maintainability of the instant writ petition on account of availability of statutory remedy is not sustainable because when there is an immediate need for relief one cannot wait for the alternative remedies to be exhausted and herein this case though the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure-3) to the extent it relates to withholding her all the retiral benefits but she has filed the instant writ petition essentially with a prayer for grant of provisional pension only, which is emanating from her representation dated 03.02.2022 (Annexure-5), and as such she needs immediate relief to avoid financial problem for her livelihood or necessities and so as to protect her fundamental rights," the court observed.

The Court reaffirmed its earlier stand that the pension and gratuity are earned by the employee and cannot be withheld due to proceedings unrelated to the official duties.

"The judicial proceedings, as referred in Rule 90 of the Rules of 1996, is with regard to the proceedings of an act of an employee pertaining to the official duties or in the office. The words ‘judicial proceedings’ as referred in that Rule, cannot be treated for the proceedings unrelated to the office duties, which has nothing to do with the official duties of functioning of the employee in his/her office. Here in this case, the criminal case in which the petitioner has been convicted, has no nexus with her official duties; rather it was a family dispute," the court clarified.

The appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Sunita Dixit vs. State of Rajasthan (2024:RJ-JD)

Click here to read/ download order