Rama Paul vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] This petition is filed by the wife of Sri Swapan Debnath who died on 19.11.2010. She claims the post death benefits of her deceased husband such as GPF, gratuity, leave salary, medical allowance, pension etc.

[2] Brief facts are as under:

The late husband of the petitioner was working as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC for short) in a Government department. His service was transferred to the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as a Corporation) upon creation of the said Corporation. On the allegations of misappropriation of public fund he was placed under suspension on 06.10.2004. Such suspension was revoked on 27.06.2008. In the meantime departmental charge sheet was already issued to him. A criminal case was instituted by filing of an FIR on 13.07.2004 on a charge that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs.5,12,451/-. The charge against him thus was for offence under Section 409 of IPC. The trial Court convicted him by a judgment dated 05.06.2010. He filed appeal against the conviction. Pending his appeal he died on 19.11.2010. His widow pursued the appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 27.07.2011.

[3] According to the petitioner since her husband had died while still in service and since he was never dismissed from service on account of the conviction by the criminal Court or upon conclusion of the departmental inquiry till his death, as his legal heir she was entitled to receive all post death benefits such as gratuity, pension, leave encashment etc.

[4] The respondents however, opposed this claim contending that the Government servant having been convicted of a serious offence, all his post death benefit would be forfeited. In fact, had he been alive, the loss caused to the public exchequer by him through misappropriation of public funds would have been recovered.

[5] Facts are not seriously in dispute. The deceased employee was convicted for a serious offence of misappropriation of public funds. Pending appeal against the conviction he died, upon which his wife choose to pursue the conviction of appeal but failed.

[6] Rule 50 of CCS Pension Rules pertains to retirement/death gratuity. As per Clause (a) of sub rule (1) of Rule 50 a Government servant who has completed five years qualifying service shall on his retirement, be granted retirement gratuity at prescribed rates. As per Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 50, if a Government servant dies while in service, the death gratuity shall be paid to his family in the manner indicated in sub-rule (1) of Rule 51 at specified rates. Rule 51 in turn specifies the person to whom such gratuity will be paid in case of a death of a Government servant while in service.

[7] As per these Rules thus the widow of the deceased could claim gratuity only if the deceased government servant at the time of his death was entitled to claim the same. Since he was initially placed under suspension and thereafter was facing departmental inquiry and subsequently also convicted by the criminal Court and which conviction was confirmed by the appellate Court, his right to receive the gratuity cannot be stated to have been crystallized. In terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rules the competent authority would have the right of withholding pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period and also ordering recovery from pension or gratuity of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service. It would be highly incongruent to award all post death benefits to the wife of the Government servant which during his lifetime he could not have claimed.

[8] However, the question of Provident Fund stands on a different footing. It is a saving of a Government servant and is not subject to his good conduct unlike the gratuity and pension and which despite his conviction, the respondents could not have withheld.

[9] The writ petition is allowed to the limited extent of directing the respondents to release the Provident Fund accumulated in account of the deceased at the time of his death. Since there is gross delay in filing the petition, the same shall carry no interest till the date of his order and for a period of one month from now. If there is any further delay in payment of the said sum, the same shall carry interest at the rates currently prescribed by the Provident Fund authority.

[10] Petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.