IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No. 6116 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 13, 2009
GURBACHAN SINGH
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing order dated 25.2.2009 (Annexure P-13) issued by the Director,
Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab. Further prayer is for
issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to
release retiral benefits i.e. regular pension, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity,
etc. of the petitioner, who retired on 31.3.2008, along with interest.
Civil Writ Petition No. 6116 of 2009 2
It has been pleaded that the petitioner joined the Department
of Education as Science Master on 9.11.1974. The petitioner was to
superannuate on 31.3.2008. The pension case of the petitioner was
referred to the Accountant General, Punjab. On consideration of the
matter, it transpired that a criminal case for commission of offences under
Sections 166, 167, 177, 182, 193, 477-A, 427, Indian Penal Code, was
pending against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Rajpura. Be that as it may, the provisional pension is being paid to the
petitioner to the extent of 90%. Other retiral benefits are not being paid.
The case is still pending before the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has referred to the
provisions of Rule 9.14 of Chapter IX Volume II of the Punjab Civil
Services Rules, which provides that provisional pension equal to the
maximum pension is admissible to an employee on the basis of qualifying
service upto the date of retirement. Rule 9.14(1)(c), however, provides
that no gratuity shall be paid to the Government employee until the
conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and the issue of
final order thereon.
Considering the import of the rule, the respondents are
directed to release 100% provisional pension to the petitioner. So as to
safeguard the interest of the respondents, however, other benefits shall not
be released. It is further made clear that the respondents shall review the
case of the petitioner after conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The
petitioner, on the conclusion of the proceedings, would be at liberty to file
a representation to the respondents for reconsidering his claim for release
Civil Writ Petition No. 6116 of 2009 3
of all the retiral benefits, which shall be considered by the respondents
within a period of 2 months of the representation being made by the
petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the case of a
person senior to the petitioner in the hierarchy and involved in the same
criminal offence, all the retiral benefits have been released.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that
appropriate measures would be taken and if the retiral benefits have been
released in violation of the rules, after issuing a show cause notice to the
said person, remedial measures would be taken.
In view of the statement made on behalf of the respondents,
the official respondents are directed to consider the case of Smt.Joginder
Kaur in whose case all the retiral benefits have allegedly been released in
violation of the rules.
The petition stands disposed of with the above observations.
November 13, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?