Teka Ram vs State of Haryana and Another

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant pension as well as other retiral benefits to the petitioner.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Peon in Municipal Committee, Julana on 5.2.1970 and ultimately retired on 30.6.1998 but inspite of making representations, the retiral benefits have not been released to him. The reason for not releasing the retiral benefits to the petitioner is that he produced a false affidavit showing his wrong date of birth and accordingly on the basis of complaint made against him, an FIR No. 130 dated 30.7.1999 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC was registered against him, in which, ultimately he was acquitted of the charges by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 2.5.2008.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after retirement of the petitioner on 30.6.1998, the respondent-Committee asked the petitioner to furnish an affidavit to the effect whether he was withdrawing Army pension or not. In response to that, the petitioner submitted an affidavit dated 22.7.1998, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that he was not withdrawing the Army pension. Learned counsel further submits that during the pendency of pension case of the petitioner, the then Secretary, Municipal Committee, Julana got registered an FIR against him, in which, he was acquitted of the charges by the trial Court but inspite of that he has not been granted any benefit. Learned counsel also contends that the petitioner was having more than ten years of service at the time of retirement and was entitled for all retiral benefits including leave encashment, pension and gratuity etc. Many representations were made to the respondent-Committee but neither any action has been taken thereupon nor any benefit has been granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court in State of Bihar and Others Vs. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad, , in support of his contentions.

Written statement on behalf of respondent No. 2 has been filed and the same is on record.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner had concealed his date of birth as in the affidavit it was mentioned that his date of birth was 15.6.1938, whereas, he was born in the year 1922. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner was in Army and was 25 years of age at the time of discharge on 13.8.1947 but the discharge certificate was not brought to the notice of the respondent-Committee. Even in District Employment Exchange, Jind, the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded was of the year 1922 and entry with regard to army service was also mentioned. Learned counsel also submits that as per date of birth of the petitioner, he was supposed to retire in the year 1982 and hence he is not entitled for pension under Rule 9 of Haryana Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1993 as these Rules are applicable to the employees who retired after 1992.

Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents available on file.

Admittedly, the petitioner joined respondent-Municipal Committee on 5.2.1970 and retired on 30.6.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation. On the basis of complaint, an FIR No. 130 dated 30.7.1999 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC was registered against him but ultimately he was acquitted of the charges by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 2.5.2008. The pensionary benefits have not been released to the petitioner because of criminal case and also that he furnished wrong affidavit before respondent No. 2 and on the basis of said affidavit he continued to work on his post, whereas, he could have retired earlier. Admittedly, the petitioner has made various representations but no action was taken thereupon. The stand of the respondents for not releasing pension has been mentioned only in the written statement, whereas, no action was taken on the representations filed by the petitioner. Even in written statement, it has been mentioned that because of registration of FIR against the petitioner, he was held not entitled for pension but no appeal against judgment of acquittal has been filed.

In view of the facts as mentioned above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass necessary order in accordance with law after verifying the facts by taking into consideration the averment made in the petition as well as the stand taken in the written statement within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In case the respondents come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for pension then the same be released to him within a period of one month thereafter. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by any action of the respondents he is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy.