LAKSHMI RANI BALORIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband of the petitioner was an employee of J&K Animal Husbandry department. He was working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. He was placed under suspension vide Govt. order No. 251 -ASH of 1991 dated 1st of October 1991, for the reason that a case under FIR No. 9/82 -2292 under Section 5 (2) of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 409/120 -B of RPC stood registered against him. The said FIR came to be investigated and challan was filed for trial of the accused along with another accused namely Kulwant Singh for commission of the said offences. During the trial, the petitioners husband reached at the age of superannuation on 30.9.1997. The petitioner submits that whatever was due to the Government for which the case stood registered was received from the Banks and deposited into Govt. Treasury except an amount of Rs. 68.87.P. which was lying with the United Commercial Bank, Rohtak. The copy of the communication dated 21.04.2004 issued by Director Animal Husbandry Department Jammu addressed to the petitioner reads as follows: -

(2.) WHILE the trial was in progress the petitioners husband Janak Singh Baloria expired on 24.10.1999 in P.G.I Chandigarh while undergoing treatment. Consequently, upon the death of the petitioners husband Learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Jammu by his order dated 12.11.1999 held that the proceedings against the petitioners husband would abate. After retirement the petitioners husband was granted provisional pension and after his death petitioner was granted family pension vide Family Pension payment order No. 20269 dated 19.05.2000.However, the petitioner was not granted the pay and emoluments as well as the retiral benefits which were due to be paid to the petitioners husband as per Govt. Instruction No. 2 appended to Article 168 -D of Civil Service Regulations.

(3.) THE stand of the respondents is that when the petitioners husband was under suspension and was facing trial he was not entitled to the release of the emoluments and after his retirement to the release of retiral benefits in toto. It is submitted that after the death of the petitioners husband he cannot be treated to have been exonerated from the charges so as to become entitled to full emoluments as well as full retiral benefits.