INDRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was originally filed by Indraj Singh, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents to release his retiral benefits along with interest @ 12% per annum. Indraj Singh, unfortunately, expired during the pendency of the writ petition. However, his legal representatives, namely, his widow and son (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) were brought on record vide order dated 16.8.2002. Shorn of the details, the facts may be summarized as follows: Indraj Singh joined the Irrigation Department as a Clerk in the year 1966 and was later on promoted as Assistant Revenue Clerk. While he was posted as a Reader with the Land Acquisition Collector at Patiala, a criminal case under Section 419, 467, 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(C) and 13 (1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against him along with his co-accused on 21.9.1996. He was placed under suspension. Indraj Singh was due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.5.1998. Pending trial in the criminal case, respondent No. 5 being the competent authority, passed an order dated 27.5.1998 (Annexure P-2) whereby Indraj Singh was reinstated in service w.e.f. 30.5.1998 (afternoon) and he was then retired from service on 31.5.1998 vide order of the even date (Annexure P-3). Indraj Singh, however, was not paid the retiral benefits, except provisional pension, on the ground that he was facing trial in a corruption case. Alleging that his remaining retiral benefits could not be withheld due to pendency of the criminal case, he filed this writ petition.

(2.) The respondents have put in appearance and filed their reply dated 22.1.2001 asserting that the petitioner was not entitled for the pensionary benefits except 'provisional pension' and GPF, which had already been released to him vide order No. 26 dated 22.12.2000 (Annexures R-1 and R-2). It is also not disputed by Learned Counsel for the parties that the arrears of GPF were actually paid to the petitioner on 22.12.2000 (vide receipt Annexure R-3/T), though according to the petitioners, a part of the GPF account was withheld, therefore, the payment vide receipt Annexure RII/ T was received "under protest".

(3.) I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record.