Pendency Of Criminal Proceedings Without Conviction Can't Be Ground To Withhold Statutory Rights Like Pension & Gratuity : Jharkhand HC

Background Facts

The respondent was appointed as a Lecturer in Hindi at B.N.J. College, on 01.11.1984 for a period of one year on a temporary basis. There was a clause that her services could be terminated at any time without assigning reasons. She joined the college on 07.01.1985. On 08.02.2002, she was transferred on deputation to Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College, where she joined on 16.02.2002. Later, on 07.11.2003, she was appointed as a Member of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. She was granted five years of extraordinary leave without pay in 2004. Then she was provisionally absorbed into Ranchi University service under Section 4(14) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. After completing her tenure in JPSC, she rejoined R.L.S.Y. College on 07.11.2009.

On 02.06.2011, the respondent was arrested by the Vigilance Department in connection with certain criminal cases. She was placed under suspension on 03.06.2011. She was granted bail and resumed duty on 30.01.2014, following which her suspension was revoked. However, she was again suspended on 04.03.2015 due to the pendency of criminal proceedings alleging moral turpitude. Then on 18.12.2018, Ranchi University decided to compulsorily retire her under Section 67 of the Jharkhand State Universities Act. Therefore, she was retired on 25.01.2019 with three months' salary. Her Provident Fund was settled in 2020 but other retiral benefits such as pension, gratuity, and leave encashment were not released despite several representations.

Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition seeking release of retiral benefits. The writ court directed the University to fix her pension as per the 6th and 7th Pay Revisions and pay all admissible dues. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the Letters Patent Appeal.

It was submitted by the appellant that the findings recorded by the writ Court were totally perverse and therefore, deserve to be set aside. On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent that mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot deprive an employee of her statutory right to receive pension and other retiral benefits. The respondent supported the writ court judgment.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the respondent served the University as a lecturer and thereafter, while she was posted a member of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, six criminal cases came to be lodged against her by the Vigilance Department. Out of these six cases, she was acquitted in three cases, while the other three cases were still pending adjudication, but the respondent was never convicted. Even her suspension orders passed from time to time came to be revoked.

The case of Deoki Nandan Prasad vs Union of India was relied upon by the court wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that the pension is not a bounty payable on the will and pleasure of the Government. It is a valuable right vested in a Government servant. The pension has been held to be a right in property, which cannot be withheld and is to be treated as deferred salary. It is duly related and has a relation with the salary payable to the employees as on the date of retirement.

Further the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey versus State of Jharkhand and Others was also relied upon by the court wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that under Rule 43(a) and 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, there is no power for the Government to withhold gratuity and pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding. It does not give any power to withhold leave encashment at any stage either prior to the proceeding or after conclusion of the proceeding. Further it was held that an employee cannot be denied leave encashment even after conclusion of the departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings.

It was held by the court that the writ court committed no error in directing the appellant-University to fix the pension of the respondent in accordance with the 6th and 7th Pay Revisions and to release gratuity, leave encashment, and all other admissible dues in view of the fact that respondent had neither been convicted nor was any punishment imposed upon respondent pursuant to any departmental enquiry.

With the aforesaid observations, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.

Case Name : Ranchi University vs Shanti Devi & Ors

Case No. : L.P.A. No. 482 of 2024

Counsel for the Appellant : Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Indrajit Sinha, Advocate, Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate, Md. Z.A. Khan, A.C. to S.C.-VII