Withholding pension benefits due to an ongoing criminal case not related to the employee’s official duties violates the right to life: Rajasthan HC

High Court of Rajasthan ruled that withholding pension benefits from an employee solely on the basis of pending criminal proceedings that had nothing to do with official duties was unjustified and contrary to the right to life, because these were the sources through which the employee obtained his necessities after retirement could provide.

“The pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits are the earnings of an employee for the services he/she renders in the department. Taking away or withholding such benefits after retirement amounts to depriving the petitioner of the right to life because the retrial benefits are the sources through which the petitioner and her family can meet their bread and other necessities.”

The bank of Judge Farjand Ali heard a petition from a government employee who had served in the ministry for over 37 years, but when she retired, her pension and other retirement benefits were withheld by the government as there was a pending criminal case against her under Section 306, IPC .

The petitioner was appointed as a librarian in 1985. In 2000, she was convicted by the court in a case of abetment to suicide, against which she had filed an appeal that was pending a final ruling. When she retired in 2022, all her retirement benefits were withheld by the department on the grounds that they will be dependent on the final outcome of the criminal appeal.

The petitioner submitted a request to the department to grant her provisional pension in accordance with law, but no such request was acted upon. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present request.

According to counsel for the petitioner, she has served the department for 37 years without being subjected to any departmental proceedings for any misconduct in connection with her official duties. It was argued that the withholding of pension benefits violated the petitioner’s right to life as she had no other source of income and was facing severe financial difficulties.

After going through the record, the Court agreed with and considered the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel Rule 90 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 which provides for a provisional pension when departmental or judicial proceedings may be pending. The Court held that the words “judicial proceeding” in the Rule cannot be treated as a proceeding unrelated to the official duties of the employee’s performance in his/her office.

The Court also referred to two coordinated decisions of the Rajasthan High Court. In Mahesh Chandra Soni v. State of Rajasthan and Ors it was held that the pension and gratuity could not be deducted due to procedures unrelated to the official duties.

Further, inside HR Choudhary v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors it was held that filing an appeal against conviction under Section 306, IPC, was not sufficient to withhold entire pension and was arbitrary and illegal.

Against this background, the Court found that the criminal case against the petitioner was not related to her official duties, but rather a family dispute. Moreover, the petitioner’s impeccable service record of 37 years was also highlighted by the Court.

The Court ruled that,

“The basic purpose behind granting the benefits of pensions, gratuities and other retirement benefits is that an employee after retirement at an old age should not face any financial problem for his/her livelihood or necessities… Only because of the dependence on criminal proceedings and also that in respect of the offense under Section 306 of the IPC, which has nothing to do with official duties, cannot in any way be said to be justified.”

Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner was entitled to provisional pension and the petition was dismissed.

Title: Smt. Sunita Dixit v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 316

Click here to read/download the order