AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)
Prayer in the present writ petition is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned action of the respondents in not deciding the claim of the petitioner for grant of service and pensionary/retiral benefits, such action being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair and contrary to the settled principles of law laid down in Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & others v. Pyare Lal, 2014 (4) SCT 711; Bengali Babu Misra v. State of U.P. & others, 2003 (3) AWC 1760, MANU/UP/1042/2002, decided on 05.12.2002; and Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey v. The State of Jharkhand & others, 2009 (2) SLJ 105; and for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant and release to the petitioner leave encashment for 10 months along with interest @ 12% per annum from the due date, i.e. 31.03.2015, till the date of actual realization, and further to revise the petitioner's Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) by taking into account the period of suspension from 21.06.2013 to 30.03.2015, i.e. 1 year, 8 months and 12 days, by treating the said period as qualifying service, along with interest @ 12% per annum from the due date till actual realization; and/or for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondents to revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioner by treating the period from 21.06.2013 to 30.03.2015 as duty period and to release the consequential arrears along with interest @ 12% per annum from the due date till actual realization; and further to grant the revised benefit of 3rd ACP in the pay scale of ₹3600/- w.e.f. 04.03.2014 in terms of Haryana Government order No. 1/83/2008--IR (FD) dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure P-11), along with consequential arrears and interest @ 12% per annum from the due date till actual realization; and/or for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant two annual increments to the petitioner w.e.f. July, 2013 and July, 2014, which remained due during/after the period of suspension, along with consequential arrears and interest @ 12% per annum from the respective due dates till actual realization; and/or for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondents to grant and release the admissible half salary for the period of suspension, along with consequential arrears and interest @ 12% per annum from the due date till actual realization.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, all the benefits claimed by the petitioner have since been released vide order dated 22.04.2024 (Annexure R-2). It is, however, submitted that no interest has been paid to the petitioner despite the fact that the pensionary/retiral benefits were released to him after a considerable delay of about 10-11 years.
Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any interest, as criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 26 dated 18.06.2013, registered under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar, were pending against him at the time of his retirement. Learned State counsel refers to Rule 79 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, which provides as under:-
“Where punishment awarded by the punishing authority is set aside by the Court of law due to lack of evidence or by giving the benefit of doubt, in such cases the interest on delayed payment of pensionary benefits shall not be admissible.”
Learned State counsel further points out that the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Special Judge, Hisar, vide judgment dated 24.04.2015 (Annexure P-8), by extending the benefit of doubt. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon paragraph 35 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
“Hence, in view of above findings, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused upto hilt beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. Thus, by giving benefit of doubt the accused are acquitted of charges framed against them. After expiry of period of limitation for preferring appeal, case property be disposed of as per rules. Documents be sent to the concerned quarter. After due compliance file be consigned to record room.”
It is, thus, submitted by learned State counsel that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the parameters of Rule 79 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, as he was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.
Learned State counsel further points out that the aforesaid judgment of acquittal was challenged by the respondent-State before this Court by way of Criminal Appeal bearing CRM-A-1716-MA-2015, titled State of Haryana v. Ishwar and another, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure P-9). It is contended that thereafter, the case of the petitioner was duly considered and all the benefits admissible to him were released vide order dated 22.04.2024 (Annexure R-2). It is, accordingly, submitted that there was no delay on the part of the respondents after the dismissal of the State's appeal by this Court on 09.05.2022.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to challenge the order dated 22.04.2024 (Annexure R-2), whereby interest on the delayed payment of pensionary/retiral benefits has been denied to the petitioner.
Permitted to do so.
The present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.