MAJEED K.S. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition has been filed by the applicant in O.A. (EKM).No.2016/2019 challenging the order dated 18.2.2019 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner retired from service as Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department on 30.4.2019. He was not paid his pension and other benefits including DCRG. Hence he sought for a direction to disburse the pension and other benefits due to him. It was the contention of the State that judicial proceedings is pending against the applicant. Having taken note of the aforesaid factual aspect, the Tribunal directed that the applicant should be paid provisional pension and that on dropping of further action in the vigilance case, his regular pension and DCRG should be sanctioned. It is further directed that the disbursement of DCRG shall be subject to the applicant executing a bond as provided under Ruling 5 to Rule 116 of Part III KSR.

(2.) The original petition is filed inter alia contending that the Tribunal committed serious error in directing only payment of provisional pension. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that provisional pension is payable in terms of Rule 3A(a) of Part III KSR. In order to invoke the aforesaid Rule, a judicial proceedings should be instituted in terms of Rule 3 of Part III KSR. As per explanation to Rule 3 of Part III KSR, (a) a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the employee or pensioner or if the employee has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted-(i) in the case of a criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of police officer on which the Magistrate takes congnizance is made; and (ii) in the case of a civil proceeding, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court. It is argued that in the present case, no such enquiry is pending and so far no final report is submitted before the Magistrate and hence Rule 3A(a) has no application and consequently the petitioner is entitled for the entire pension.

(3.) Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Jharkhand & Others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Another [(2013) 12 SCC 210]. That was a case in which Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 was considered by the Apex Court. At Paragraph 13 it was held as under: