RAJESH KUMAR SAXENA Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. The petitioner was suspended on 26th June, 2004. He was relieved from duty on 5th July, 2004. The petitioner was actually retired from service on 31st July, 2004. The allegations relate to the year 2003 on which the order of suspension was passed against the petitioner amongst 30 other officers taking a general stand.

(2.) FULL pensionery benefits alongwith gratuity and leave encashment etc. have not been paid as yet. No charges were framed against the petitioner. No charge-sheet has been submitted as yet. Against this background we want to consider the ratio of the judgments of the Hon'ble the Apex Court and High Courts cited before us although it is well known that pension is the property of the pensioner.

(3.) IN the case of Mahabir Prasad Sharma v. State of U. P. & Ors. , 2001 (3) UPLBEC 2060, a Division Bench of this Court held that if disciplinary inquiry commences-before the retirement then it must be completed within six months after the retirement. Further a Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Bangali Babu Misra v. State of U. P. & Ors. , (2004 (2) ATJ 63) has held that withholding of post retiral benefits may be gratuity, pension or other dues, after the retirement of a Government servant can be done only in accordance with any Rule and in absence of any such Rule or any such law, the post retiral dues cannot be withheld neither the pension can be stopped nor curtailed nor reduced. Therefore, the Division Bench allowed the writ petition by issuing a writ of mandamus upon the respondents to release the entire post retiral dues of the petitioner including gratuity, pension, commutation, leave encashment, Group INsurance etc.