Vijay Kumar vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. (ORAL)

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 03.01.2024 (P-4), whereby respondent No.3 on the basis of sheer misconstruction and in complete deviation of service jurisprudence as well as settled principle of law has denied the pensionary benefits to the petitioner on absolutely wrong notions by misinterpreting the order dated 22.03.2012 (P-1) passed by respondent No.1.

The petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2020 after rendering approximately 33 years of service. His grievance is that his pensionary/retiral benefits have been withheld on the basis of order dated 03.01.2024 (P-4) passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ferozepur, whereby, while reinstating the petitioner in service, the benefit of his past service was withdrawn.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pensionary benefits are a valuable legal right accruing to an employee on account of the service rendered by him and cannot be denied merely on the basis of the aforesaid order.

The stand of State/respondents No.1 to 3, as reflected from the written statement/affidavit of Deepshikha Sharma, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, is that the petitioner had been proceeded against on account of tampering with the official records. Significantly, the respondents themselves admit that no pecuniary loss was caused to the Government Treasury/State Exchequer. No provision of the applicable pension rules has been pointed out before this Court which would justify complete withholding of the petitioner's pensionary benefits on the basis of the order dated 03.01.2024 (P-4).

The withdrawal of past service benefits for purposes such as increments, ACP or any other service benefits during the tenure of service cannot, in the absence of a specific statutory provision or order having such legal effect, be construed as forfeiture of the petitioner's accrued right to pension after rendering 33 years of service.

In these circumstances, this Court finds no justification for withholding the petitioner's retiral benefits merely on the basis of the aforesaid order. It is also noted that retiral benefits and pension are not gratuitous payments but a deferred portion of compensation for past service and a social welfare measure, as has been recognized by the Apex Court in “DS Nakara Vs. Union of India, reported as (1983) 1 SCC 305.

Therefore, keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner has rendered almost three decades of service and that pension is a right of an employee, which can only be curtailed in accordance with law, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition warrants interference by the Court. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release to the petitioner all pensionary/retiral benefits admissible to him under the applicable rules. The arrears shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date the respective amounts became due till the date of actual payment.

The needful shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.