FAQUIR CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAN the pensionary benefits be withheld on account of pendency of criminal proceedings is the short issue that arises in the present writ petitions.

(2.) THIS issue could have easily been resolved by making reference to Haryana Civil Services Rules, Volume II, Part I (for short, "the Rules"), still it has come before the Court, which will not speak well off the State functionaries. The present petitions are avoidable litigation and could have easily been avoided if the respondents had done their duty or atleast had applied their mind to the position that has been settled by more than one judgment delivered by this Court. Since it is again disputed by the State, it may require another decision.

(3.) THERE is not much dispute on the basic facts as can be seen from the reply filed. The respondents would only point out that the petitioner is accused of an offence under Section 302 IPC. To justify the non grant of pension, it is stated that the petitioner was not relieved as he had made a request for his adjustment at Yamuna Nagar. Pendency of criminal case is advanced as a reason not to promote the petitioner ultimately. Like the petitioner, the respondents have also referred to Rule 2.2 of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Part II, to justify their action of withholding the pension and pensionary benefits. Relying upon some explanation under the Rules, which is reproduced in the reply, the counsel for the respondents would contend that no gratuity or death -cum -gratuity is to be paid until the conclusion of the proceedings and final order thereon.