# Dukhan Prasad Singh v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1269
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-05-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55257 of 2004
- **Bench:** R.K. Agrawal, Sanjay Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dukhan-prasad-singh-v-union-of-india-and-others-40699
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Rules
1972-Rule
9
(4)-
Pension-with held-on the ground of
pendancy of judicial proceeding-for same
occurrence in departmental proceeding
petitioner
was
found
innocentcontinuance of judicial proceeding even
after the retirement-can not be basis for
denying the pensionary benefits-except
the in case of conviction in serious crime
or guilty of grave mis conduct.

Held: Para 22
Thus, it is well settled by the Apex Court
that the pension is not a bounty. It is a
legal entitlement which can only be
curtailed by an express provision of law
and not otherwise. Non-mention of the
word 'continued' in respect of the
judicial proceeding in sub-rule(4) of Rule
9 of the Pension Rules is significant. As
sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Pension
Rules does not contemplate a situation
where judicial proceedings have been
instituted prior to the superannuation of
the
Government
servant
and
are
continued after his superannuation, we
are of the considered opinion that the
order of provisional pension as provided
in Rule 69 of the Rules could not have
been passed and instead the regular
pension ought to have been given. It
may be mentioned here that under Rule
8 of the Pension Rules future good
conduct is an implied condition of every
grant of pension and its continuance and
if the pensioner is convicted of a serious
crime or is found guilty of grave
misconduct, the appointing authority
may, by order in writing withhold or
withdraw a pension or a part thereof,
whether permanently or for a specified
period. Thus, the authorities have been
given sufficient powers to withhold or
withdraw the pension either in full or in
part, permanently or for a specified
period
in
case
of
conviction
of
a
pensioner in a serious crime or he being
found guilty of grave misconduct.
Case law discussed:
1971 (2) SCC-330
1983 (1) SCC-305
1985 (3) SCC-345
1987 (2) SCC-179
1992 (2) SCC-664
1996 (10) SCC-148
2001 (8) SCC-71

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 226Interest-pension-delayed
due
on
pendancy of judicial proceeding against
the
petitioner-held
illegal-petitioner
entitled for full pension and not for
provisional pension-held-entitled for 10
% interest per annum on difference of
amount.
1270 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
Held: Para 24

We do not find any good ground for not
compensating
the
petitioner
for
withholding the payment of full pension
for a period of about five and a half
years, we, therefore, hold that the
petitioner is entitled for the interest at
the rate of 10% per annum on the
difference amount after 30 days as and
when it became due and till the date of
its actual payment.
Case law discussed:
1987 (4) SCC-328 relied on.

## Text

3All] Dukhan Prasad Singh V. Union of India and others 1269
the State of Uttar Pradesh to pass an
appropriate reasoned order in accordance
with law after hearing the petitioners and
considering all relevant factors mentioned
in the judgment including 'No Objection
Certificate' given to other Institutions and
in the light of the observations made in
the judgment within six weeks' from the
date of production of a certified copy of
this order.

No order as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJAY MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55257 of 2004

Dukhan Prasad Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amit Saxena
Sri P.N. Saxena
Sri D.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.C. Sinha, Asst. S.C. India
S.S.C.

(A)
C.C.S.
Rules
1972-Rule
9
(4)-
Pension-with held-on the ground of
pendancy of judicial proceeding-for same
occurrence in departmental proceeding
petitioner
was
found
innocentcontinuance of judicial proceeding even
after the retirement-can not be basis for
denying the pensionary benefits-except
the in case of conviction in serious crime
or guilty of grave mis conduct.

Held: Para 22
Thus, it is well settled by the Apex Court
that the pension is not a bounty. It is a
legal entitlement which can only be
curtailed by an express provision of law
and not otherwise. Non-mention of the
word 'continued' in respect of the
judicial proceeding in sub-rule(4) of Rule
9 of the Pension Rules is significant. As
sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Pension
Rules does not contemplate a situation
where judicial proceedings have been
instituted prior to the superannuation of
the
Government
servant
and
are
continued after his superannuation, we
are of the considered opinion that the
order of provisional pension as provided
in Rule 69 of the Rules could not have
been passed and instead the regular
pension ought to have been given. It
may be mentioned here that under Rule
8 of the Pension Rules future good
conduct is an implied condition of every
grant of pension and its continuance and
if the pensioner is convicted of a serious
crime or is found guilty of grave
misconduct, the appointing authority
may, by order in writing withhold or
withdraw a pension or a part thereof,
whether permanently or for a specified
period. Thus, the authorities have been
given sufficient powers to withhold or
withdraw the pension either in full or in
part, permanently or for a specified
period
in
case
of
conviction
of
a
pensioner in a serious crime or he being
found guilty of grave misconduct.
Case law discussed:
1971 (2) SCC-330
1983 (1) SCC-305
1985 (3) SCC-345
1987 (2) SCC-179
1992 (2) SCC-664
1996 (10) SCC-148
2001 (8) SCC-71

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 226Interest-pension-delayed
due
on
pendancy of judicial proceeding against
the
petitioner-held
illegal-petitioner
entitled for full pension and not for
provisional pension-held-entitled for 10
% interest per annum on difference of
amount.
1270 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
Held: Para 24

We do not find any good ground for not
compensating
the
petitioner
for
withholding the payment of full pension
for a period of about five and a half
years, we, therefore, hold that the
petitioner is entitled for the interest at
the rate of 10% per annum on the
difference amount after 30 days as and
when it became due and till the date of
its actual payment.
Case law discussed:
1987 (4) SCC-328 relied on.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.)

1. By means of the present petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner Dhukhan Prasad
Singh, seeks the following reliefs:

"(a) issue a Writ, Order or Direction
in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
Judgment and Order dated 23.7.2004
passed
by
the
Respondent
No.5
(Annexure No.10) and also the order
dated 1.5.2003 (Annexure No.3) passed
by the Respondent No.2.

(b) issue a Writ, Order or Direction in
the nature of Mandamus commanding the
Respondent No.2 to release the full
pension of the petitioner along with the
arrears and also release all the retiral
benefits including gratuity.

(c) issue any other or further Writ, Order
or Direction, which the Court may deem
fit and proper in favour of the petitioner.

(d) award the cost of the petition."
Briefly stated the facts giving rise to
the present petition are as follows:-

2. According to the petitioner, he
was appointed on 6th July, 1959 in the
Railway Mail Service on the post of Mail
Man in Gaya Division. He was reitred on
31st July, 2000 from the post of HSG-II
SA from the office of HRO, RMS 'C'
Division, Gaya. After his retirement the
petitioner was not granted full pension nor
he was given his post retiral benefits
including gratuity and other entitlements.
The Senior Superintendent, RMS 'C"
Division,
Gaya,
respondent
No.3,
however, vide order dated 5.9.2000
granted
provisional
pension
to
the
petitioner w.e.f. 01.8.2000. It is alleged by
the petitioner that at the time of his
retirement no departmental proceedings,
whatsoever,
were
pending
nor
any
disciplinary
proceedings
have
been
initiated against him after his retirement.
The
petitioner
made
several
representations for the release of the full
amount of retiral benefits, however, no
action was taken on them whereafter the
petitioner
filed
Original
Application
No.1417 of 2002 before the Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Allahabad,
hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal",
which vide order dated 5th December,
2002 directed the authorities concerned to
take
a
final
decision
on
the
representations made by the petitioner
within two months from the date of
receipt of the copy of the order and to pay
his retiral benefits in case there was no
impediment under law. Pursuant to the
directions given by the Tribunal, the
Director of Accounts (Postal), Patna-1,
respondent No.2, vide order dated 1st
May, 2003 had rejected the representation
of the petitioner on the ground that he was
facing trial in Case No.932 of 1992,
which is related to his services during his
employment
with
the
respondent
authorities. The aforesaid case relates to
the period when the petitioner was in
service and was working at Hazari Bagh
3All] Dukhan Prasad Singh V. Union of India and others 1271
Road RMS, when certain insured articles
were lost from the custody of the RMS
Hazari Bagh for which a First Information
Report was lodged at police station
Bagapur against six persons including the
petitioner. According to the petitioner,
pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. he was
issued a memorandum of charge for
imposition of minor penalties under Rule
16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 along with
a statement of imputation to which he
submitted his reply in which he had stated
that he was not even on duty when the
articles were allegedly lost. After a full
fledged enquiry, the disciplinary authority
came to the conclusion that the petitioner
could not be held guilty of any
misconduct
and
vide
orders
dated
13.8.1998 he was exonerated of all the
charges levelled against him. However, a
charge sheet was submitted by the police
authorities on 30.11.1994. The trial is still
going on. After the rejection of the
petitioner's
representation
vide
order
dated 1st May, 2003, the petitioner
challenged the same by filing Original
Application No.757 of 2003 before the
Tribunal,
which
was
allowed
vide
judgment and order dated 5th September,
2003. The Tribunal had quashed the
orders dated 1st May, 2003 and directed
the respondents to release the full pension
of the petitioner and also to make
payment
regarding
commutation
of
pension and gratuity payable to the
petitioner along with interest at the rate of
10 per cent per annum. The order of the
Tribunal dated 5th September 2003 was
challenged by the respondent-authorities
by means of Writ Petition No.268 of 2004
before this Court and this Court vide
judgment and order dated 8th January,
2004 had allowed the writ petition on the
ground that the petitioner therein had not
been given proper opportunity to file
counter affidavit and consequently order
dated 5th September, 2003 was set aside
and the matter was remanded. After the
exchange of the pleadings, the Tribunal
vide its judgment and order dated 23rd
July, 2004 had dismissed the Original
Application filed by the petitioner, which
order is under challenge in the present
writ petition. The Tribunal vide impugned
order has rejected the claim made by the
petitioner on the following ground:-
"....Perusal
of
Rule-9
of
CCS
(Pension)
Rules,
1972
shows
that
President has the right of withholding a
pension of gratuity or both either in full or
in part, whether permanently or for
specified period and of ordering recovery
from a pension or gratuity of the whole or
part of any pecuniary loss caused to the
government if, in any departmental or
judicial proceedings, pensioners is found
guilty of grave misconduct or negligence
during the period of service, including
service rendered upon re-employment
after retirement. This rule makes it clear
that if in the judicial proceedings any
pensioner is found to be guilty of grave
misconduct of negligence during the
period of service, President has right to
withhold the pension or gratuity or both.
He can even order recovery of the amount
of
pecuniary
loss
caused
to
the
Government. Therefore, the contention of
applicant's counsel that even if applicant
is ultimately convicted in the criminal
case, department cannot pass any orders
against the applicant is not valid, the same
is accordingly, rejected."

3. The Tribunal was further of the
view that sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 nowhere
says that the departmental or judicial
proceedings should be instituted after the
retirement as is being read by the counsel
for the petitioner.
1272 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
4. We have heard Sri P.N. Saxena,
learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of the
petitioner and Sri K.C. Sinha, learned
Assistant Solicitor General of India
appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. Sri Saxena, learned Senior
Counsel,
submitted
that
once
the
department has exonerated the petitioner,
it is no longer open to the authorities to
stop or withhold the retiral benefits. He
further submitted that from the perusal of
sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Pension
Rules, hereinafter referred to as the
Pension Rules, it is absolutely clear that in
order to justify sanctioning of provisional
pension judicial proceedings should be
instituted after the retirement of the
Government servant. Further, it does not
apply to a case where the judicial
proceedings are pending or continued
from before the date of retirement of a
Government
servant
as
the
words
"judicial proceeding" are missing in the
second para of sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of
the Pension Rules.

6. Sri K.C. Sinha, however,
submitted that even if the petitioner has
been exonerated in the departmental
proceedings that would not entitle him to
claim full retiral benefits in view of the
specific provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule
9 of the Pension Rules. According to him,
as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the
Pension Rules, the Government servant is
entitled for only provisional pension
where
the
judicial
proceedings
are
instituted or after his retirement the same
are continued. According to him, the
Tribunal had given good reasons for
rejecting the claim of the petitioner and it
does not call for any interference under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India.
7. Having given our anxious
consideration to the various pleas raised
by the learned counsel for the parties, we
find that it is not in dispute that the
petitioner has been exonerated in the
departmental proceedings. He has been
found by the authorities to be not on the
duty on the date on which the alleged
incident of loss of insured articles from
Hazari Bagh Road RMS. It is also an
admitted fact that the petitioner is facing
trial in Criminal Case No.932/92 which is
related
to
his
services
during
his
employment
with
the
respondentauthorities. The question is as to whether
when the petitioner has been exonerated
in the departmental proceedings, merely
because a criminal case is pending against
him, he can be deprived of his full retiral
benefits including full pension or not. The
grant of pension is governed by the
Pension Rules. Rule 9 of the aforesaid
Rules
empowers
the
President
to
withdraw or withhold the pension. For a
ready reference Rule 9 is reproduced
below:-

"9.Right of President to withhold
or withdraw pension.

(1) The President reserves to himself
the right of withholding a pension or
gratuity, or both, either in full or in part,
or withdrawing a pension in full or in
part, whether permanently or for a
specified period, and of ordering recovery
from a pension or gratuity of the whole or
part of any pecuniary loss caused to the
Government, if, in any departmental or
judicial proceedings, the pensioner is
found guilty of grave misconduct or
negligence during the period of service,
including service rendered upon reemployment after retirement.
3All] Dukhan Prasad Singh V. Union of India and others 1273
Provided that the Union Public
Service Commission shall be consulted
before any final orders are passed:

Provided further that where a part of
pension is withheld or withdrawn, the
amount of such pensions shall not be
reduced below the amount of rupees One
thousand two hundred and seventy-five
per mensem.

(2)(a) The departmental proceedings
referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted
while the Government servant was in
service whether before his retirement or
during his re-employment, shall, after the
final retirement of the Government
servant, be deemed to be proceedings
under this rule and shall be continued and
concluded by the authority by which they
were commenced in the same manner as
if the Government servant had continued
in service:

Provided that where the departmental
proceedings are instituted by an authority
subordinate to the President, that authority
shall submit a report recording its findings
to the President.

(b) The departmental proceedings if not
instituted while the Government servant
was in service, whether before his
retirement,
or
during
his
reemployment.-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the
sanction of the President,
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event
which took place more than four years
before such institution, and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority
and in such authority and in such place as
the
President
may
direct
and
in
accordance with the procedure applicable
to departmental proceedings in which an
order of dismissal from service could be
made in relation to the Government
servant during his service.
(3) Deleted.

(4) In the case of Government
servant who has retired on attaining the
age of superannuation or otherwise and
against
whom
any
departmental
or
judicial proceedings are instituted or
where
departmental
proceedings
are
continued
under
sub-rule
(2),
a
provisional pension as provided in Rule
69 shall be sanctioned.

(5) Where the President decides not
to withhold or withdraw pension but
orders recovery of pecuniary loss from
pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily
be made at a rate exceeding one-third of
the pension admissible on the date of
retirement of a Government servant.

(6) For the purpose of this rule.-

(a) departmental proceedings shall be
deemed to be instituted on the date on
which the statement of charges is issued
to the Government servant or pensioner,
or if the Government servant has been
placed under suspension from an earlier
date, on such date; and
(b) judicial proceedings shall be
deemed to be instituted-

(i) in the case of criminal proceedings,
on the date on which the complaint or
report of a Police Officer, of which the
Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and

(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on
the date the plaint is presented in the
Court."
1274 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
8. From the reading of the aforesaid
Rule, we find that under sub-rule (1) the
President has reserved to himself the
following
rights
where
any
any
departmental or judicial proceedings the
pensioner is found guilty of grave
misconduct or negligence during the
period of service, including service
rendered
upon
re-employment
after
retirement:

(1) Right to withhold the pension or
gratuity, or both, either in full or in part;
(2) Right to withdraw a pension in full
or in part, whether permanently or for a
specified period; and
(3) Right to order recovery from a
pension or gratuity of the whole or part of
any
pecuniary
loss
caused
to
the
Government.

9. However, under the first proviso,
before any final orders are passed, the
Union Public Service Commission has to
be
consulted.
The
second
proviso
provides that where a part of pension is
withheld or withdrawn, the amount of
such pensions shall not be reduced below
the amount of Rupees one thousand two
hundred seventy five.

10. Sub-clause (a) of sub-rule (2)
provides for continuance of departmental
proceedings
instituted
against
the
Government servant while in service by
treating the same as if the Government
servant had continued in service and by
fiction it has been treated as proceedings
under Rule 9.

11. Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) deals
with the cases, where the departmental
proceedings have not been instituted
before the retirement of a Government
servant. It provides that it cannot be
instituted without the sanction of the
President and it shall not be in respect of
any event which took place more than
four years before such institution and
shall be conducted by such authority and
in such place as the President may direct
in
accordance
with
the
procedure
applicable to departmental proceedings
relating to the Government servant has
been made applicable.

Sub-rule (4) provides for sanction of
a provisional pension as provided in Rule
69 in the following circumstances:-

(1) where any departmental proceedings
are
instituted
instituted
against
the
Government servant, who has retired on
attaining the age of superannuation or
otherwise;

(2) where any judicial proceedings are
instituted against the Government servant,
who has retired on attaining the age of
superannuation; or
(3) where the departmental proceedings
are continued under sub-rule (2) against
the Government servant who has retired
on attaining the age of superannuation or
otherwise.

However, under the proviso the
findings recorded by the authorities be
reported to the President.

Sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 provides for
the amount of pension for which recovery
can be ordered where the pension has not
been withheld or withdrawn. It provides
that the recovery should not exceed onethird of the pension admissible on the date
of retirement of the Government servant.

Sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 provides for
the point of time when the department
3All] Dukhan Prasad Singh V. Union of India and others 1275
proceedings or the judicial proceedings
shall be deemed to have been instituted.

12. Having analyzed the various
provisions of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules,
we find that under sub-rule(4) of Rule 9
of the Pension Rules, provisional pension
as provided under Rule 69 has to be
sanctioned only in cases where the
departmental proceedings are instituted,
after the Government servant has retired
on attaining the age of superannuation or
where
the
judicial
proceeding
are
instituted against the Government servant,
who has retired on attaining the age of
superannuation or otherwise. The words
"judicial proceedings are instituted" do
not speak of judicial proceedings being
continued it has not been specifically
mentioned whereas in the case of
departmental proceedings it has been
specifically provided.

13. A Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Deokinandan
Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and
others, (1971) 2 SCC 330 while agreeing
with the view of majority in the Full
Bench decision of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in K.R. Erry v. The
State of Punjab, ILR 1967 Punj. & Har
278, has held that the pension is not a
bounty payable on the sweet will and
pleasure of the Government and that, on
the other hand, the right to pension is a
valuable right vesting in a Government
servant.

14. In the case of D.S. Nakara and
others vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC
305, another Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court had occasion to consider the
nature of the pension. In paragraph 22 of
the reports the Apex Court had held as
follows:
"22. In the course of transformation
of society from feudal to welfare and as
socialistic
thinking
acquired
respectability, State obligation to provide
security in old age, an escape from
undeserved want was recognised and as a
first step pension was treated not only as a
reward for past service but with a view to
helping the employee to avoid destitution
in old age. The quid pro quo was that
when the employee was physically and
mentally alert, he rendered unto master
the best, expecting him to look after him
in the fall of life. A retirement system
therefore exists solely for the purpose of
providing benefits. In most of the plans of
retirement
benefits,
everyone
who
qualifies for normal retirement receives
the same amount."

15. While summing up the Apex
Court in paragraph 29 of the reports held
as follows:

"Summing up it can be said with
confidence that pension is not only
compensation for loyal service rendered
in the past, but pension also has a broader
significance, in that it is a measure of
socio-economic justice which inheres
economic security in the fall of life when
physical and mental prowess is ebbing
corresponding to aging process and,
therefore, one is required to fall back on
savings. One such saving in kind is when
you give you best in the hey-day of life to
your employer, in days of invalidity,
economic security by way of periodical
payment is assured. The term has been
judicially defined as a stated allowance or
stipend made in consideration of past
service of or a surrender of rights or
emolument to one retired from service.
Thus the pension payable to a government
employee is earned by rendering long and
1276 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
efficient service and therefore can be said
to
be
a
deferred
portion
of
the
compensation or for service rendered..."

16. It had further held that pension is
neither a bounty nor a matter of grace
depending upon the sweet will of the
employer and that it creates a vested right
subject to the rules.

17. In the case Poonamal v. Union
of India, (1985) 3 SCC 345, the Apex
Court has held that pension is a right not a
bounty or gratuitous payment. The
payment of pension does not depend upon
the discretion of the Government but is
governed by the relevant rules and anyone
entitled to the pension under the rules can
claim it as a matter of right.

18. In the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and
another, (1987) 2 SCC 179, the Apex
Court has held that though pension is not
a bounty but it is a right earned by the
government servant on the basis of length
of service, nonetheless grant of full
pension depends on the approval of
service rendered by the employee.

19. In the case of All India Reserve
Bank Retired Officers Association and
others v. Union of India and another,
1992 Supp.(1) SCC 664, the Apex Court
has held that the pension is not a charity
or bounty nor is it gratuitous payment
solely dependent on the whim or sweet
will of the employer. It is earned for
rendering long service and is often
described
as
deferred
portion
of
compensation for past service. It is in fact
in the nature of social security plan to
provide for the December of life of
superannuated employee. Such social
security plans are consistent with socioeconomic
requirements
of
the
Constitution when the employer is a State
within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution.

20. In the case of Vasant
Gangaramsa Chandan v. State of
Maharashtra and others, (1996) 10 SCC
148, the Apex Court has held that the
pension is not a bounty of the State. It is
earned by the employee for the service
rendered to fall back, after retirement. It is
a right attached to the office and cannot
be arbitrarily decided.

21. In the case of Subrata Sen and
others v. Union of India and others,
(2001) 8 SCC 71, the Apex Court has
held as follows:

"....Payment of pension does not
depend upon pension fund. It is the
liability undertaken by the Company
under the Rules and whenever becomes
due and payable is to be paid. As
observed in Nakara case(1983)1 SCC
305) pension is neither a bounty, nor a
matter of grace depending upon the sweet
will of the employer nor an ex gratia
payment. It is a payment for the past
services rendered. It is social welfare
measure rendering socio-economic justice
to those who in the hey-dey of their life
ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an
assurance that in their old age they would
not be left in the lurch..."

22. Thus, it is well settled by the
Apex Court that the pension is not a
bounty. It is a legal entitlement which can
only be curtailed by an express provision
of law and not otherwise. Non-mention of
the word 'continued' in respect of the
judicial proceeding in sub-rule(4) of Rule
9 of the Pension Rules is significant. As
3All] Ram Naval V. The Board of Revenue and others 1277
sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Pension
Rules does not contemplate a situation
where judicial proceedings have been
instituted prior to the superannuation of
the Government servant and are continued
after his superannuation, we are of the
considered opinion that the order of
provisional pension as provided in Rule
69 of the Rules could not have been
passed and instead the regular pension
ought to have been given. It may be
mentioned here that under Rule 8 of the
Pension Rules future good conduct is an
implied condition of every grant of
pension and its continuance and if the
pensioner is convicted of a serious crime
or is found guilty of grave misconduct,
the appointing authority may, by order in
writing withhold or withdraw a pension or
a part thereof, whether permanently or for
a specified period. Thus, the authorities
have been given sufficient powers to
withhold or withdraw the pension either
in full or in part, permanently or for a
specified period in case of conviction of a
pensioner in a serious crime or he being
found guilty of grave misconduct.

23. The question still arises as to
whether
the
petitioner
should
be
compensated by award of interest for
wrongful withholding of the pension. In
the case of O.P. Gupta v. Union of India
and others, (1987) 4 SCC 328 the Apex
Court has held as follows:

"Normally, this Court, as a settled
practice, has been making direction for
payment of interest at 12 per cent on
delayed payment of pension. There is no
reason for us to depart from that practice
in the facts of the present case."

24. We do not find any good ground
for not compensating the petitioner for
withholding the payment of full pension
for a period of about five and a half years,
we, therefore, hold that the petitioner is
entitled for the interest at the rate of 10%
per annum on the difference amount after
30 days as and when it became due and
till the date of its actual payment.

25. In view of the foregoing
discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the orders dated 1.5.2003,
filed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition
and passed by the Senior Superintendent
RMS 'C' Division Gaya, respondent No.3
and the orders dated 23rd July, 2004
passed by the Tribunal, filed as Annexure
No.10 to the writ petition, cannot be
sustained and are set aside.

26. The writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued
directing
the
Director
of
Accounts
(Postal) Patna-1, respondent No.2, to
release full pension of the petitioner
including arrears along with interest as
mentioned above within three months
from the date a certified copy of this order
is filed before the said respondent no.2.
However, the parties shall bear their own
costs.

Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.4.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE JANARDAN SAHAI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17382 of 2006

Ram Naval

...Petitioner
Versus
The Board of Revenue and others

 ...Respondents