The Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sunita Dixit vs. State of Rajasthan (SB civil writ Petition 8786/2022)reiterated that the pension and gratuity are earned by the employee and cannot be withheld due to proceedings unrelated to the official duties.
The Court was dealing with a civil appeal filed by a Librarian against the decision of her employer to withhold all her retiral benefits owing to her pending appeal in a case under Section 306 of IPC.
The Court observed ,” The Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Mahesh Chandra Soni (supra) while dealing with the catena of judgments has held that the pension and gratuity are earned by the employee and cannot be withheld due to proceedings unrelated to the official duties.” The petitioner who was appointed as Librarian in the respondent department had a criminal case registered against her under Section 306 of IPC. She was convicted and sentenced in the same against which she duly appealed. The appeal was admitted and the sentence awarded to her was suspended. However, it remains pending final adjudication. Subsequently, the Education department suspended the petitioner while serving her a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 19582 for her conviction in a criminal case and for failing to inform the higher officer about the conviction as well as for her absence from service. Although she was reinstated following a court order but all her retiral benefits were withheld stating therein that the same would be subject to the final outcome of the criminal appeal filed by her.
Also read – 56% of Gen Z professionals prefer consulting GenAI over managers: Report
She submitted a representation for granting her provisional pension and benefits of services in accordance with law which went unanswered. Hence, the present petition.
The Court at the outset pointed out that the respondent department has not come with a case that the petitioner has ever been subjected to any kind of disciplinary proceedings or any disciplinary proceedings related to the official duties or misconduct are pending against her. In furtherance, the court rejected both the objections raised by the respondent department. “The objection raised by learned Dy.G.C. regarding maintainability of the instant writ petition on account of availability of statutory remedy is not sustainable because when there is an immediate need for relief one cannot wait for the alternative remedies to be exhausted and herein this case though the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.01.2022 to the extent it relates to withholding her all the retiral benefits but she has filed the instant writ petition essentially with a prayer for grant of provisional pension only, which is emanating from her representation dated 03.02.2022 and as such she needs immediate relief to avoid financial problem for her livelihood or necessities and so as to protect her fundamental rights,” the court observed.
The Court reaffirmed its earlier stand that the pension and gratuity are earned by the employee and cannot be withheld due to proceedings unrelated to the official duties. “The judicial proceedings, as referred in Rule 90 of the Rules of 1996, is with regard to the proceedings of an act of an employee pertaining to the official duties or in the office. The words ‘judicial proceedings’ as referred in that Rule, cannot be treated for the proceedings unrelated to the office duties, which has nothing to do with the official duties of functioning of the employee in his/her office. Here in this case, the criminal case in which the petitioner has been convicted, has no nexus with her official duties; rather it was a family dispute,” the court clarified. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Source : verdictum
