K C KAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER Petitioner was entitled to interim pension, gratuity and other service benefits on the date of retirement as Joint Director, local Fund Audit Department U.P. Allahabad or the same can be withheld on the basis of FIR lodged much after the retirement in which Petitioner's name figured as one of the accused but in the body of FIR no role is assigned to the Petitioner, is the short but significant question that falls for determination in present writ petition filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents to release the payment of interim pension, gratuity, pensionary benefits, together with other benefits that have accrued to the Petitioner upon his retirement from 30 -11 -86 as Joint Director, Local Fund Audit Department, U.P. Allahabad and further directing the Respondent No. 2 Director of Local Fund Audit to send necessary papers with regard to the computation and fixation of the pension etc. of Petitioner to the Accountant General Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) FACTS of the case are almost admitted and lie in a narrow compass. The Petitioner has completed successfully his tenure as Joint Director, Local Fund Audit Department U.P. Allahabad and attaining age of superannuation was retired on 30 -11 -86. The Director, Local Fund Audit Department by his order dated 5 -3 -1987 (Annexure 2 to the petition) released interim pension for the period 1 -12 -86 to 31 -5 -87 at the rate of Rs. 1277/ -per month and sanctioned interim gratuity to the tune of Rs. 49000/ - -and interim relief at the rate of Rs 100/ per month. These amounts were sanctioned in the name of Petitioner and were withdrawn by Sri D.N. Dubey, Assistant Director on 6 -3 -1987 (Annexure 3 to the petition). Thereafter, the Director by his order dated 18 -3 -1987 (Annexure 4 to the petition) sanctioned leave encashment of the Petitioner. State Government by its order dated 13 -2 -1987 (Annexure 5 to the petition) sanctioned transfer Travelling Allowance of the Petitioner. But the Petitioner was paid only three months' interim pension whereas six months interim pension and other service benefits mentioned above were withheld by the Respondents.

(3.) SRI Krishna Mohan Sinha, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that pensionary benefits to a Government servant are not bounty rather it is a statutory right of a Government servant to get pension and gratuity etc. Article 41 (forty one) of the Constitution provides right to assistance to a Government servant for old age, sickness or disablement, hence right to pension and gratuity etc. is a constitutional right and same cannot be withheld just on lame excuses. It was further urged that relevant Government order dated 28 -1 -87 (Annexure 12 to the petition) indicates that even if any disciplinary proceeding or judicial proceeding is pending against the employees who retired, nevertheless interim pension cannot be stopped, and in the present case no proceeding was pending against the Petitioner during his service period and the incident alleged to have taken place, in the FIR was of a period much after the retirement of Petitioner but similarly situate other persons named in the FIR have been paid their pension and other service benefits whereas Petitioner has been discriminated. Reliance was placed on D.S. Nakara v. Union of India : AIR 1983 SC 130, Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1409 and State of Kerala v. M.P. Naiyar : AIR 1985 SC 356.