Pension & Gratuity Can't Be Withheld Owing To Pending Criminal Proceedings: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held that retiral benefits like pension and gratuity cannot be withheld owing to pending criminal proceedings.

The Court was considering a Letters Patent Appeal against an order passed allowing a Lecturer, suspended due to pending criminal proceedings, retiral benefits.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed, "In view of the settled legal position, the learned writ Court committed no error in directing the appellant to fix the pension of respondent No. 1 by taking into consideration 6th and 7th pay revision and thereafter fixing the benefits and pay the amount of gratuity, leave encashment and other benefits for which respondent No. 1 was entitled in accordance with law in view of the fact that respondent No. 1 had neither been convicted nor was any punishment imposed upon respondent No.1 pursuant to any departmental enquiry."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Aprajita Bhardwaj, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Indrajit Sinha.

Facts of the Case

The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent was arrested by the Vigilance Department and sent to jail. Thereafter, she was suspended from her service. Later, the Respondent joined back in her services and regularly performed her duties with suspension order revoked. However, the Appellant-University again suspended Respondent on the pretext of pending criminal proceedings against her, which involved moral turpitude.

Due to the serious nature of the allegations, the University arrived at a decision to grant compulsory retirement to Lecturer under the provisions of Section 67 of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000. Later, the Appellant revoked the suspension order of the Lecturer and immediately, thereafter, ordered the retirement of Lecturer and paid her three months’ salary in lieu of notice period. Since the retiral benefits of Lecturer were not being paid, she made various representations. Later, she made a Representation to the Registrar for the release of her pension and other retiral dues along with the arrears. The Appellant- University and the Department of Higher Education exchanged communiques, but no action was taken. Subsequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition of the Lecturer and directed the Appellant herein to fix the pension taking into consideration 6th and 7th pay revision and further directed the Appellant to pay the benefits for which the Lectures was legally entitled to, within a period of 12 weeks.

Counsel for the Lecturer vehemently argued that the legal position was settled long time back and yet the Appellants unnecessarily dragged her into this avoidable litigation and therefore, should be compensated in monetary terms by imposing cost.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the only issue which was required to be decided by the writ Court was as to whether pendency of a criminal case can by itself be a bar for non-payment of retiral benefits, including gratuity, pension, group insurance and leave encashment.

Stating that the issue is no longer res integra, it referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Deoki Nandan Prasad-Vs.-Union of India (1971), in which it was held that the pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and the pleasure of the Government and the same is a valuable right vested in a Government servant.

"In the later judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, pension has been held to be a right in (property), which cannot be withheld and is to be treated, as deferred salary. It is duly related and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employees as on the date of retirement", the Court observed.

The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Ranchi University vs. Shanti Devi (2025:JHHC:25056-DB)

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocate Aprajita Bhardwaj

Respondent- Advocate Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Z.A. Khan

Click here to read/ download Order