STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHANKER LAL RAJPUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE facts in short are that respondent-employee was in the employment of the State of Rajasthan. He was involved in a criminal case under Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently, he was convicted. An order was passed on 14.3.2005 withholding benefit of pension as well as gratuity which was questioned before the Single Bench. It was further submitted that denial of benefit of leave encashment was also not proper. He was also suspended during pendency of criminal case. He also prayed for payment of wages for the period of suspension minus payment of subsistence allowance.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 47 has laid down that withholding of pension by way of punishment includes gratuity. Similar is the view taken by the Apex Court in Union of India and Anr. Vs. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463 in the context of Rule 9(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.