Lalit Mohan Arya vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

N.S. Dhanik, J

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To declare the action of the respondents in withholding the Pension Gratuity, Commutation and other retiral dues of the petitioner, as arbitrary

and illegal.

(ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith release the outstanding retiral benefits to

the petitioner forthwith.

(iii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, to pay interest on the delayed payment at a rate to be

specified by this Hon’ble Court.

(iv) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly respondent no. 1 & 2 to grant all

consequential benefits to the petitioner, from due date.â€​

Brief facts of the case are that after attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired on 30.06.2017 from the post of Principal,Â

Government Inter College,. However, his retiral dues have not been released till date.

Learned State Counsel contended that the petitioner used low quality construction material in the construction of school premises and thus

misappropriated the public money and, therefore, an FIR dated 13.12.2011 under Section 406 & 409 IPC has been registered against the petitioner and

the criminal proceedings are pending against him. Therefore, retiral dues of the petitioner have not been released.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the papers on record.

The admitted fact is that pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, the department did not even give any sanction to prosecute the petitioner. Now, the

petitioner stood retired after attaining the age of compulsory retirement. It is also undisputed that pursuant to the said FIR, petitioner has been granted

all other service benefits. But, he has been denied his retiral dues. Though the liability has been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents,

but denial is only on the ground that criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner.

Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of

the employer and that pension is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hay-day of their life ceaselessly toiled

for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch.

Even otherwise, an employee earns pension by the dint of long and continuous service and the same cannot be denied without the authority of law

and without following the due process of law. Right to receive pension has been held to be the right to property protected under Article 300A of the

Constitution even after the repeal of Article 31(1) by the 42nd constitutional amendment [State of West Bengal vs. Haresh C.Banarjee and others;

(2006) 7 SCC 65].

In the present case, the petitioner has taken a specific plea that there is no statutory rule or provision to withhold the pension. The same has not

been specifically denied by the respondents nor any such statutory rule or provision has been brought to our notice.

In fine, both on facts and in law, the petitioner is entitled to retiral dues like pension, gratuity etc. and accordingly, we allow the writ petition and

direct the respondents to work out and release all the retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of

certified copy of this order.

The Writ Petition stands disposed off finally.