PRAFULLA CHANDRA HAZARIKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to release pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other retirement benefits to the petitioner.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner was working under the Directorate of Agriculture, Government of Assam and retired from service on 31.3.95 as Additional Director of Agriculture, Diphu. Just before his retirement, an explanation was called for from the petitioner by letter dated 5.1.95 of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Agriculture Department, in respect of various financial irregularities and administrative lapses on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner furnished his explanation by his letter dated 19.1.95 to the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Agriculture Department. Notwithstanding the said explanation, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceeding against him by order dated 21.3.95 of the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Agriculture Department. A few days thereafter on 31.3.95, the petitioner retired from service. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he has not been paid his pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other retirement benefits and that although he was paid provisional pension for a few months, the payment of such provisional pension has also been stopped.

(3.) Mr SC Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that although the petitioner was placed under suspension, no charges have yet been framed against the petitioner and, therefore no disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him. Thus withholding of pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner was not permissible under rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, (for short "the Rules"). He further contended that at any rate under rule 22(1) of the Rules, the petitioner was entitled to be paid provisional pension but such provisional pension though paid initially for a few months, is not being paid now. Mr Biswas, therefore, submitted that it is a fit case in which this Court should direct the authorities to pay pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other retirement benefits to the petitioner within a stipulated time.