Hardeep Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS
!"#
!$ "
%&'
(
&#)& &
&
& * &#
++++ * , *-.
/0 0
!#&1.
2'3 1#0 %"4
)#&
4
! " ! #$# !$
% &&&&&
)#&
4
%0 !#&3 This common order will dispose of both the connected petitions, details of which have been given in the heading, as the common question of law arises in both of them and for the purpose of passing this order, the facts are being taken from '()*+,-.)*/.- In the present petition, prayer of the petitioner is for the release of the pensionary benefits for which he had become entitled for upon his
retirement, i.e. on 29.02.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that three days prior to the retirement of the petitioner, an FIR No.26, dated 26.02.2016, was registered against him under Section 166-A(b) of the IPC, at Police Station Rahon, SBS Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of registration of the said FIR, the pensionary benefits admissible to the petitioner were withheld by the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that not even the provisional pension has been released to the petitioner till now, which is totally arbitrary and illegal as even where the proceedings are pending against an employee, he is entitled for grant of the provisional pension along with the Provident Fund.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, no retiral benefits could have been withheld by the respondents, especially when a cancellation report has already been submitted by the Investigating Agency in the said FIR No.26, dated 26.02.2016. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents be directed to release the pensionary benefits of the petitioner along with the interest on the delayed payments.
Learned State counsel submits that keeping in view the averments made in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner have been withheld by the respondentDepartment due to the pendency of FIR No.26, dated 26.02.2016. Learned State counsel further submits that though the cancellation report has been prepared and submitted before the competent Court of law but as the same is yet to be accepted, therefore, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner
have rightly been withheld by the respondent-Department. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
0 1 ! 2 ' ! ! !3 ! ! ! ! 3 !
1
3 3 ! 1
2
0 12 ! 2 43'5 3 !
5 ! 43'5 1 3 !
!
) 3 !
!! 1 ! 3 !
1 !
3 !! ! 3 !
!! ' !
6 ! !
33
!
3 )
!
"#
$!
!
$
/
!
$
!
!
%
$!
& Keeping in view the above, and the fact that nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to show that charges were framed against the petitioner in the FIR registered against him on the date when he retired, or even as of now, therefore, it cannot be said that on the date of his retirement, any proceedings were pending against him so as give the jurisdiction to the respondents to withhold his pensionary benefits. Even otherwise the cancellation report has already been submitted before the competent Court of law in respect of the FIR in question, since long. Further even where the proceedings are pending against an employee, as per the settled principle of law, the employee is entitled for 100% of the Provisional Pension, and therefore, 100% Provisional Pension as well as Provident Fund of the petitioner could not have been withheld by the respondent-Department.
In the present case, the petitioner has not been treated fairly by the respondents in respect of the release of his pensionary benefits. Keeping in view the above, prayer of the petitioner for the release of his pensionary benefits is allowed as on the date when the petitioner became entitled for the grant of pensionary benefits, there were no proceedings which could be treated to have been pending against him so as to give jurisdiction to the respondents to withhold his pensionary
benefits. That being so, as the petitioner had retired in February, 2016, i.e. six years ago, and he has been restrained from using his pensionary benefits, the petitioner also becomes entitled for the grant of interest on the said delayed payments.
3 78 '
"
"#$%& ' " # ()* 32 1 2 1
13 3
3 3 !3 2
2
3 ) ' (
)
* +
(
!
!
,
!
!
!
, - .* !
/0 12
(
!
!
&
Further, a !) 8 1
'() .9-,+)*//. ##
"
"#+ , " # ! */ ..
*/.: 1 3 2% 3 "3 1 !2
32 3 32 ! ) 3 32!3 !3 3 !
; 9 3 ) 3
!
$
4
!
0
!
!
! 3
3
!
!
1
23
(
!
!
(
!
!
& ! 3 1 1 2 )"3 < !2 ! 2 !
2 "3 ! ! 223 !2 2 !) 8 '
Keeping in view the above, the petitioner is entitled for the interest on the delayed payments of the pensionary benefits, which are to be released to him under this order,at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it became due till the date of actual release of the same. Let the pensionary benefits admissible to the petitioner be released to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with the interest as granted.
Allowed in the above terms.
!2 ! !
!! /0 0
)#&
4
,
%"* .
(
= > * ( >