Kamtu and Others vs State of Raj. and Another

Gopal Krishan Vyas

Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the following prayer has been made by legal representatives of late Nagendra Kumar, who was working as Patwari under the control of District Collector, Banswara:--

(A) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to release entire gratuity of Shri Nagendra Kumar in favour of the petitioners.

(B) That, Respondents may further be directed to release in favour of petitioner No. 1 the family petition on and from the death of Shri Nagendra Kumar.

(C) That, whatever arrears become due on account of final pension being released in favour of Shri Nagendra Kumar that may be directed to be released in favour of the petitioner No. 1. Any other retiral due which has been withheld from Shri Nagendra Kumar may as well be directed to be released in favour of the petitioner.

(D) That, in addition to all the aforesaid dues, an interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum may be directed to be released in favour of the petitioners on the amount so withheld from them.

(E) Any other appropriate order, direction in consonance with facts and grounds stated herein above may as well be directed to be released in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that although an inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was conducted, but no specific order of penalty was passed against late Nagendra Kumar, who was employee of the respondent department, more so, the order upon which the respondents are refusing pensionary benefits cannot be termed as an order of punishment, because it has been passed without application of mind, so also, it has been passed relying upon the report of inquiry officer without discussing any of the charge, therefore, findings is perverse and illegal.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further apprise this Court that whatever stated in the order is not a punishment nor it is enumerated penalties under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958, therefore, after the death of Nagendra Kumar his legal representatives are entitled for all retiral benefits.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the pension and other service benefits have been denied on the ground that late Nagendra Kumar was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and after inquiry a penalty is imposed vide order dated 20.07.2004 and a criminal case under Prevention of Corruption Act was pending against late Nagendra Kumar, therefore, no pensionary benefits can be released in favour of the petitioners.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the operative part of the order dated 20.07.2004 (Annexure-6), which reads as under:-

In my opinion, the order for imposing penalty against late Nagendra Kumar is contrary to the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, so also, the penalty imposed against late Nagendra Kumar after his retirement cannot be imposed without any sanction of His Excellency the Governor under the rules, therefore, therefore, the order impugned is not in accordance with law. The respondents cannot deny the retiral benefits of late Nagendra Kumar on the basis of order Annexure-6.

In view of above, the respondents are directed to release all the retiral benefits of late Nagendra Kumar to the petitioners within a period of three months. It is made clear that petitioners will be entitled for retiral benefits of late Nagendra Kumar including regular pension till his death from the date of retirement and thereafter family pension in accordance with the Rules as well as other service benefits including gratuity. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.