MIHIR DATTA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner, who is a retired employee under the State Government of Tripura, seeking direction to the Respondents herein to make payment of the Petitioner's gratuity, pension and other pensionary benefits.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner may, in brief, be set out as under:

(3.) While resisting the writ petition and justifying their delay in making pension and other retiral benefits available to the Petitioner, the Respondents have averred, in brief, thus: Pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits could not be made available to the Petitioner, though he had retired, on superannuation as far back as on 31.03.2005, because of the fact that before payment of retiral benefits,-particularly, to the holders of gazetted posts under the Government of Tripura, Vigilance Clearance Certificate from the Department of Vigilance Organization, Government of Tripura, is required to be submitted by the department concerned. Since the Petitioner, prior to his retirement, held a gazetted post as an Executive Engineer, a vigilance clearance certificate was sought for by the Accountant General, Tripura, but the vigilance clearance certificate could not be given in favour of the Petitioner for the reason that the Government of Tripura had received a complaint against the Petitioner, on 06.07.2000, as regards alleged misappropriation of government money by him, while he was posted and functioning as Executive Engineer, and, therefore, the Government of Tripura decided to cause a preliminary enquiry against the Petitioner. The Vigilance Organization accordingly started a preliminary enquiry against the Petitioner and asked the Petitioner and his wife to attend the office of the vigilance organization, i.e., the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Government of Tripura. However, instead of appearing before the vigilance authority, the Petitioner and his wife filed a writ petition in the High Court, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 118/2001 and WP(C) No. 150/2001, respectively, challenging the authority of the vigilance organization to direct them to appear for the enquiry. By judgment and order, dated 07.12.2001, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petitions by observing that the Petitioner, being a government servant, ought to cooperate in the enquiry, which was being conducted by the vigilance organization. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petitions, the Petitioner and his wife preferred appeals, the appeal preferred by the Petitioner gave rise to WA No. 8/2002, wherein a miscellaneous application was also made, which gave rise to CM Application No. 4/2002. A Division Bench of this Court passed an order, on 13.04.2002, in the CM Application No. 4/ 2002 aforementioned staying, until further order, operation of the impugned judgment and order, dated 07.12.2001, aforementioned, whereby the writ petitions had been dismissed. In such circumstances, the Vigilance Organization could not proceed further with the said enquiry. As the vigilance clearance was not given, necessary proposal could not be submitted to the Accountant General by the Respondents/authorities concerned for payment of pension and other retiral benefits to the Petitioner.