Ravishankar Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The petitioner herein stood retired from the Office of the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer on 31-7-2019, but he is being paid only anticipatory

family pension to the extent of 90% and gratuity has been withheld on the ground that some non-departmental enquiry has been conducted by the

Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kawardha and the Executive Engineer, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, Kawardha, and

report has been submitted to the Director, Agriculture on 25-5-2021.

It is the case of the petitioner that since no departmental enquiry nor any criminal case is pending or initiated against him on the date of his

retirement i.e. 31-7-2019, therefore, he is entitled for full pension and the amount of gratuity as well.

Return has been filed by the State / respondents No.1 to 4 stating that non-departmental enquiry has been conducted by the two Executive

Engineers and report has been submitted to the Director, Agriculture on 25-5-2021, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for full pension and also not

entitled for gratuity as well. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, affidavit has been filed by the Director, Agriculture.

Mr. Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that on the date of retirement and even till today no judicial

proceeding has been instituted against the petitioner in terms of Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, 'the

Rules of 1976'), therefore, by virtue of Rule 64 (1)(c) of the Rules of 1976, the amount of gratuity cannot be withheld and as such, the petitioner is

entitled for full pension and the amount of gratuity as well.

On the other hand, Mr. Amrito Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State / respondents No.1 to 4, would submit that since

non-departmental enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner and certain recommendations have been made to the Director, Agriculture on 25-

5-2021, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for full pension and the amount of gratuity as well.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost

circumspection.

The first question for consideration is, whether the State Government is justified in not releasing full amount of pension in favour of the petitioner?

Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 1976 is enabling provision for grant of provisional pension during the pendency of judicial proceedings and the term

“judicial proceedingsâ€​ has been defined in Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of the Rules of 1976. Rules 9(4) and 9(6)(b)(i) of the Rules of 1976 state as under:-

“9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension.-(1) to (3) xxx xxx xxx

(4) In the case of Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or

judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension and death-cum-retirement

gratuity as provided in Rule 64, as the case may be, shall be sanctioned:

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

(6) For the purpose of this rule-

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted-

(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is

made; and

(ii) xxx xxx xxxâ€​

Hindi version of Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 1976 states as under:-

This Court in the matter of Dr. S.D. Dwivedi v. The State of Chhattisgarh and others W.P.(S)No.295/2016, decided on 16-2-2018, relying upon

the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Mangilal Suratsingh and another v. Board of Revenue M.P., Gwalior and others

1983 M.P.L.J. 254 has held that official language of the State of Chhattisgarh is Hindi for the purposes of notifications and Rules as mandated in

Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Official Language Act, 1957. Therefore, Hindi version of the Rules of 1976 would be preferable. Rule 9(4) of the

Rules of 1976 clearly provides that in order to invoke Rule 64(1)(c) of the Rules of 1976 to withhold the gratuity till conclusion of the judicial

proceedings, judicial proceedings must be instituted and pending on the date of retirement as provided in Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of the Rules of 1976, as

judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police

officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made.

The order passed by this Court in Dr. S.D. Dwivedi (supra) has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of The State of

Chhattisgarh and others v. Dr. S.D. Dwivedi W.A.No.468/2018, decided on 20-6-2018.

Admittedly, no judicial proceedings (criminal) in terms of Rule 9(6)(b) (i) of the Rules of 1976 were instituted or pending on the date of the

petitioner's retirement on 31-7-2019 and till today, no charge-sheet has been filed, no cognizance has been taken by the jurisdictional criminal court and

no departmental proceedings were pending against him on the date of his retirement. As such, the respondents could not have withheld the pension of

the petitioner, as on the date of retirement, judicial proceedings or departmental proceedings as provided in Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 1976 were not

pending or instituted in terms of Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of the Rules of 1976. Therefore, the respondents are directed to make payment of arrears of pension

within 30 days from today with 8% interest which has fallen due till the date of payment.

Coming to the question of gratuity, Section 64(1)(c) of the Rules of 1976 states as under:-

“64. Provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceedings may be pending-

(1) (a) and (b) xxx xxx xxx

(c) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders

thereon:

Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 16 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and

Appeal) Rules, 1966, for imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 10 of the said rules, the payment of provisional

gratuity to the extent of 90% of the gratuities admissible under the rules shall also be authorised to be paid to the government servant.

(2) xxx xxx xxx.â€​

Undisputedly and admittedly, as held above, neither departmental enquiry nor judicial proceedings were pending against the petitioner on the date

of retirement i.e. on 31-7-2019. Therefore, the provisions contained in Section 64(1)(c) of the Rules of 1976 would be inapplicable in the case of the

petitioner and as such the petitioner is entitled for full gratuity on the date of retirement and also entitled for full pension. The State Government is

unjustified in withholding the amount of the gratuity and pension as well.

In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to release the full amount of gratuity in favour of the petitioner within 30 days from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment. The

petitioner is also entitled for full pension and balance pension will be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with

interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment. However, this will not bar the respondents to proceed

in accordance with law.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).