JOMBO RATAN Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Jakir Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Subu Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for State Respondents No.1, 2 & 4; and Mr. Tambo Tamin (Leriak), learned standing counsel, Horticulture Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, for Respondent No.3.

(2.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioner, for a direction to the respondents to pay his pensionery benefits and other benefits within a specific period of time. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that, he is a retired Director of Horticulture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, and retired from service on superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2016. The petitioner has contended that he has submitted his pension papers (Form-8) to the Respondent No.4 viz. Director of Audit & Pension, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, as well as Form-5 to the Commissioner, Horticulture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. However, no pension has been sanctioned on the ground of non-receipt of vigilance clearance from the Vigilance Department due to pendency of a vigilance case against the petitioner since 2000. Despite the fact that the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vig.) forwarded the report dated 03.05.2016 regarding vigilance clearance of the petitioner furnished by the Inspector D. Dihidar addressed to the Under Secretary (Vigilance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide letter dated 4.5.2016, whereby it was informed that alleged misappropriation/misuse of fund has not been found established against the petitioner. It has been further contended that the Superintendent of Police, aforesaid, forwarded the Draft Prosecution Sanction vide letter dated 01.11.2016 wherein it was clearly stated that prosecution sanction is not required against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations dated 02.08.2016 and 24.10.2016 before the competent authority for granting of Vigilance Clearance Certificate but the same have not been attended to till date and no pensionery benefits has been released in favour of the petitioner in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the further contention of the petitioner that pensionery benefits is a matter of right and no retired employee under any Government can be deprived of his pensionery benefits and the petitioner having been retired from service on 30.06.2016 who submitted his pension papers, cannot be withhold by the authority. Hence, the instant writ petition.

(3.) The Respondents No.1 and 3, in their affidavit-in-opposition, have averred that due to non-receipt of vigilance clearance from the vigilance Department of the State, the pension could not be released in favour of the petitioner. In view of the Office Memorandum, dated 23.07.2013, whereunder vigilance clearance is invariably required for processing pension papers of the Government employees. The Respondent No.2 in his affidavit-in-opposition has contended that in course of an inquiry into the non-implementation of the Technology Mission Development of Horticulture in Arunachal Pradesh, Sri A.K. Purkayastha, Joint Director, Agriculture submitted an inspection report stating that he along with the present petitioner had inspected various components of Centre of Excellence (for short, 'CoE') at Dirang on 31.01.2010 and 01.02.2010 along with one Sri D.B. Singh, Horticulturist, to ascertain as to whether the Mission under reference was implemented during the period 2004-06. In the said report, spot verification of infrastructure, planting materials, interaction with beneficiaries and a few villagers as well as photographs depicted the ground realities which were explicated. However, it is admitted that the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vigilance), submitted a report that misappropriation/misuse of public fund has not been found established against the petitioner but he had committed irregularity by signing a false report about the existence of CoE, Dirang. The Respondent No.2 further contended that since the petitioner has retired from service, there is no necessity of according prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act of 1988') but vigilance clearance certificate could not be obtained in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2007.