DATE: 25/08/2025
COURT: High Court of Jharkhand
BENCH: Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan
and Justice Rajesh Shankar
FACTS:
Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a
lecturer in Hindi at B.N.J. College, Sisai, Gumla in November 1984 on a
temporary basis, with services terminable at any time without reason. She
joined the college in January 1985 and was subsequently transferred to Ram
Lakhan Singh Yadav (R.L.S.Y.) College, Kokar, Ranchi in February 2002 on
deputation. In November 2003, she was appointed as a member of the Jharkhand
Public Service Commission, taking charge immediately, and was granted
extraordinary leave without pay for five years. She later returned to R.L.S.Y.
College and continued her service.
In June 2011, the respondent was arrested
by the Vigilance Department and suspended from service. She was granted bail in
January 2014, and her suspension was revoked. However, in March 2015, she was
again suspended due to pending criminal proceedings. In December 2018, the
University decided to grant her compulsory retirement, which was formalized in
January 2019, with three months’ salary paid in lieu of notice. Subsequent
representations for payment of provident fund, pension, gratuity, leave encashment,
and other retiral benefits were made between 2019 and 2021, leading her to
approach the writ court after delays in processing her benefits.
ISSUES:
The primary issue before the court was
whether the pendency of criminal proceedings or departmental enquiries could
lawfully justify withholding retiral benefits, including pension, gratuity,
leave encashment, and other entitlements, for a government employee who has
neither been convicted nor punished.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal
filed by the University, upholding the writ court’s order. The Court directed
the University to fix the pension of respondent No. 1 considering the 6th and
7th Pay Commission revisions and to release all legally entitled benefits,
including gratuity, leave encashment, and other retiral dues. The parties were
left to bear their own costs.
The Court observed that respondent No. 1
had served as a lecturer and as a member of the Jharkhand Public Service
Commission, facing six criminal cases lodged by the Vigilance Department, out
of which she was acquitted in three and the remaining three were still pending.
She was never convicted in any of these cases, and her suspensions were
revoked. Therefore, the pendency of criminal cases alone could not be a valid
ground for withholding her statutory retiral benefits.
The Court relied on established legal
precedents, including Deoki Nandan Prasad v. Union of India (1971) 2 SCC 330,
which held that pension is a vested right and forms a deferred salary, not a
bounty at the pleasure of the government. It further referred to Full Bench and
larger Bench decisions of the Jharkhand High Court, which clarified that leave
encashment is part of salary and cannot be denied due to ongoing departmental
or criminal proceedings. Since respondent No. 1 had neither been convicted nor
subjected to any departmental punishment, the University’s refusal to release
her pension and other benefits was inconsistent with the settled legal
position, justifying the writ court’s directive.
ANALYSIS:
This case highlights the fundamental
principle that pension and other retiral benefits are vested rights of
government employees, forming a part of their deferred salary rather than
discretionary rewards. The respondent had served the University and the Jharkhand
Public Service Commission for several years, facing multiple criminal cases,
yet she was never convicted, and her suspensions were revoked. The repeated
withholding of her pension, gratuity, leave encashment, and other benefits by
the University due to pending proceedings was therefore legally unjustifiable.
The courts reaffirmed that the mere existence of departmental or criminal
inquiries cannot serve as a bar to the release of these statutory entitlements,
emphasizing the protection of employees’ financial rights post-retirement.
The judgment also underscores the
importance of following established legal precedents in administrative and
employment matters. By relying on Supreme Court rulings, such as Deoki Nandan
Prasad v. Union of India, and subsequent Full Bench decisions of the Jharkhand
High Court, the Division Bench clarified that leave encashment and pension
constitute essential components of salary that cannot be withheld arbitrarily.
The case reinforces the principle that government authorities must act within
the boundaries of law and cannot use unproven allegations or pending
investigations to delay legally mandated payments. This decision strengthens
the safeguard of employee rights and sets a clear precedent for similar
disputes regarding retiral benefits.
info@adhwaitha.com