SAHAB RAM S/O SHRI SURJA RAM Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, SECRETARIAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has questioned the action of the respondents in withholding his regular pension on the ground that against his acquittal in a criminal case by the Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bikaner the decision is taken by the Government to file an appeal.

(2.) After trial, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges under section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide judgment dated 18.4.12 passed by the Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 15/06. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.15. Vide Pension Payment Order dated 31.12.15 issued by the Directorate of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, Rajasthan, Jaipur, provisional pension was sanctioned under Rule 90 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 ("Rules of 1996"), however, regular pension payable was withheld on the ground that the State has taken a decision to file appeal against the judgment dated 18.4.12 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 15/06 acquitting the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that merely on account of pendency of appeal against acquittal, the pension payable to the petitioner cannot be withheld. It is submitted that the decision to file the appeal or pendency of appeal cannot be a ground to deny regular pension under Rule 90 of the Rules of 1996. Learned counsel submits that as a matter of fact, the controversy involved in the present writ petition stands covered by the decisions of this Court in the matters of 'Tarachand Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.' (SBCW No. 2153/12) decided on 12.3.14, 'Bakhtawar Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.' 2016 (2) CDR 718 (Raj.) and 'Vijay Narain Mathur v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.' (SBCW No. 4682/12) decided on 6.3.17.