Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21267 of 2004 Petitioner :- Virendra Dayal Parashari Respondent :- State Of U.P. through Secretary, Panchayati Raj And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Saxena, A.K.Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Preet Pal Singh, Shams Tabrez Ali
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Wasim Alam, Advocate holding brief of Sri A.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Shams Tabrez Ali, learned counsel for respondent-Zila Panchayat, Bareilly and learned Standing Counsel for State.
2. The grievance of petitioner is that he attained age of superannuation and retired on 31.01.1994 from the post of Office Superintendent and thereafter, was paid pension but all of a sudden his pension has been stopped from February, 1995.
3. Despite repeated query, counsel for respondents could not place any order passed by Competent Authority showing as to why pension of petitioner is not being released.
4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent-Zila Panchayat, Bareilly and learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on a letter of Additional Chief Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bareilly dated 02.02.1995 and stated that on the authority of said letter, payment of pension to petitioner has been stopped. Aforesaid letter read as under :-
^^eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd Jh ohjsUnz n;ky tks ftyk iapk;r] cjsyh esa v/kh{kd ds in ij fnukad 31-3-94 rd dk;Zjr FksA rr~i'pkr os lsok fuo`Rr gks x;sA mDr vof/k eas mlh Lrj ls fuEu fcUnqvkas ij ;Fkksfpr dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;h ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i ftyk iapk;r dks viw.khZ; {kfr gqbZA
1- ftyk iapk;r] cjsyh dh rglhy& vkaoyk ds xzke&Qqyklh eas ftyk iapk;r dh 40 ch?kk d`f"k ;ksX; Hkwfe dh uhykeh ek= :0 450@& eas djus ds izdj.k eas dk;Zdkjh eftLV~V]s cjyhs us fnukda 27-2-95 dks ftyk ipa k;r ds fo:) fu.kZ; fy;k FkkA mDr fu.kZ; ds fo:) ftyk iapk;r dh rjQ ls vihy nk;j dh tkuh Fkh tks ugha dh x;h vkSj u gh fu.kZ; 'kklu ds laKku esa yk;k x;kA mDr ekeys ds laca/k eas ;g Hkh ik;k x;k fd mDr okn ls lacaf/kr ftyk iapk;r dh i=koyh xqe dj nh x;h Fkh ftlds fy, muds Lrj ls u rks nks"kh O;fDr;kas dk mRrjnkf;Ro fu/kkZfjr djus dh dk;Zokgh djus ds lEcU/k eas dksbZ dk;Zokgh izLrkfor dh x;h vkSj u gh lEcfU/kr vfHkys[kkas dh izfr;ka izkIr djds iqu% i=koyh fuekZ.k dj vihy nk;j djus dh dk;Zokgh dh x;hA i=koyh ds xqe gksus dh lEcfU/kr iqfyl Fkkus eas x;h FkhA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ Hkh ntZ ugha djk;h
2- mi;qZDr rF;kas ls Li"V gS fd Jh ohjUnzs n;ky ftyk ipa k;r] cjyhs }kjk v/kh{kd ds :i esa vius nkf;Rokas dk mfpr fuogZ u ugha fd;k x;kA QyLo:i ftyk iapk;r] cjsyh dh lEifRr dks viwj.kh; {kfr igqWphA pwaWfd Jh n;ky lsok fuo`Rr gks pqds gSa vkSj muds fo:) fu;fer foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh lEHko ugha gSA vr% Jh n;ky dh ias'ku eas ls dVkSrh fd, tkus ds iz'u ij fopkj djrs gq, ;Fkksfpr vko';d dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr dh tk, rFkk d`r dk;Zokgh ls 'kklu dks Hkh voxr djk,A** “I have been directed to say that Shri Virendra Dayal who was posted on the post of Superintendent at Zila Panchayat, Bareilly till 31.03.1994, has retired thereafter. During the said period, appropriate action on the following points was not taken at his end resulting in irreparable loss to the Zila Panchayat.
1. In the matter of auctioning 40-bigha agricultural land of Zila Panchayat at village - Phulasi, Tehsil - Aonla, District - Bareilly, for Rs. 450/- only, the Executive Magistrate, Bareilly, had passed an order against the Zila Panchayat on 27.02.1995. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal, though required, was not filed on behalf of the Zila Panchayat, nor was the order brought into the cognisance of the government.
With respect to the said matter, it has also been found that the file related to the aforesaid case was caused to be misplaced, for which no proceeding was proposed at his end for fixing responsibility on errant persons, nor was any action taken for moving an appeal after ensuring re-construction of the file by retrieving the concerned documents. Even first information report in connection with the missing file was not lodged at the police station.
2. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that Shri Virendra Dayal has not properly discharged his responsibilities as Superintendent of Zila Panchayat, Bareilly, thereby causing irreparable loss to the property of Zila Panchayat, Bareilly. Since regular departmental proceeding is not possible to be taken against Sri Dayal because of his having retired from the service; hence, suitable necessary action be ensured against him after considering the question of making deduction from his pension, and the government be also apprised of the action taken.”
(English Translation by Court)
4. Aforesaid letter clearly shows that after retirement of petitioner, respondents found some alleged acts or omissions, constituting misconduct on the part of petitioner justifying enquiry, punishment as also recovery, for which a direction was issued by State Government to Zila Panchayat, Bareilly to initiate appropriate proceeding against petitioner and inform the Government. Instead of initiating any proceedings and passing order by Competent Authority, in furtherance whereof petitioner would have been dis-entitled to pension, respondents have proceeded to stop pension on their own which is patently arbitrary, whimsical and illegal.
5. It is now well settled that pension is not a bounty but right earned by an employee after rendering service for a particular length to the satisfaction of authorities. An employee is entitled for pension after retirement unless there is some valid and legal order justifying non-payment of pension to employee concerned, which is not the case in hand. Therefore, non payment of pension to petitioner is patently illegal and arbitrary.
6. In view thereof, writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued to respondents to forthwith release pension to petitioner and also pay arrears with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. The said amount shall be released within three months while current pension shall be paid to petitioner as and when it falls due with effect from January, 2019. The aforesaid payment shall be made but this will not deprive respondents-competent authority from passing appropriate order after giving opportunity to parties concerned in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 Siddhant Sahu