Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as Mohd. Ali, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Nagar Palika Parishad and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 10.01.2020 by which the Executive Officer while deciding the representation of the petitioner in compliance of the order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.24663 (SS) of 2019, has decided for payment of gratuity and other retiral dues in instalments of Rs.1 lac per month. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 06.08.2020 by which the Executive Officer has stopped the payment of abovesaid instalments from July, 2020 on the ground that after retirement, the petitioner has not handed over the charge inspite of repeated notices.
Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk in the year 1977 and after attaining the age of superannuation, he was retired on 28.02.2019 from the post of Head Clerk. Vide letter dated 01.04.2019, the pension and other retiral dues have been sanctioned but the same has not been paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had moved an application on 16.07.2019 for payment of pension and other retiral dues and on the application, the pension of the pension of the petitioner is being paid regularly but post retiral dues has not been paid. Aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties, the petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition No.24663 of 2019 for payment of post retiral dues i.e. gratuity, commutation, leave encashment, general insurance etc., which was disposed of vide order dated 12.09.2019. In compliance of the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court, the impugned order dated 10.01.2020 has been passed releasing some of the retrial dues and payment of some amount in instalments of Rs.1 lac per month.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the pension and other post retiral benefits of the petitioner was sanctioned after taking into consideration the no dues certificate issued by the department and, therefore, it has wrongly been submitted by the opposite parties that the petitioner has not handed over the charge of Head Clerk. Learned Counsel has again submitted that on the date of retirement, the petitioner has handed over the charge to Ms. Krishna Devi, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that vide order dated 10.01.2020, the Executive Officer has decided to release the gratuity and commutation of the petitioner in instalment of Rs.1 lac per month but vide order dated 06.08.2020, the payment of abovesaid instalment was stopped only on the ground that he has not handed over the charge inspite of repeated notices whereas the petitioner has already handed over the charge to Ms. Krishna Devi, therefore, the impugned order dated 06.08.2020 is illegal and mala fide and the same is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Nagar Palika Parishad has vehemently opposed the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has never handed over the charge to any authorized person. Ms. Krishna Devi is not authorized by any of the authority for taking over the charge from the petitioner. After coming to know the shortage of several record, notices were issued to the petitioner to handover the same but the petitioner did not turn up. Therefore, after considering the abovesaid act of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 06.08.2020 has been passed. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has invited the attention of this Court towards paras 12 and 15 of the counter affidavit. There is no illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid by merit and is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly, the petitioner was retired from service on 28.02.2019 from the post of Head Clerk. After his retirement, the pension and post retiral benefits have been sanctioned vide order dated 01.04.2019. The Executive Officer has also given no dues certificate to the petitioner, which is appended as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is also admitted fact that neither any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor any departmental proceedings have been initiated as yet.
It is accepted position of law that pension and gratuity are not bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service. In case of a civil servant whose service conditions are governed by statutory rules; pension, a deferred salary, is a right and the payment of pension/gratuity does not dependent upon the discretion of the Government. Government servant coming within the Rules is entitled to claim pension. The right to receive pension flows not by any order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows by virtue of the Rules governing pension and gratuity. A person cannot be deprived of his pension without any authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution.
For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 06.08.2020 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Sitapur is set aside.
The writ petition is allowed in part.
Order Date :- 11.2.2021 akverma