Share :
OVERVIEW
In the recent judgement of SHANTI DEVI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS, a single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court rules that the pension and the gratuity benefits for employees cannot be withheld while criminal proceedings are pending against them.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Petitioner was appointed as a lecturer at BNJ College in 1984 and transferred to Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College in 2002. She served as a member of the Jharkhand Public Service commission from 2003 to 2009 and resumed her lecturer duties thereafter.
She faced six criminal cases filed by the Vigilance Department, was acquitted in three, and three cases were pending. She was arrested, remained in custody, and was suspended from her job on June 3, 2011. Her suspension was revoked on March 14, 2014, effective from January 30, 2014. Despite no departmental proceedings against her, she was suspended again on March 04, 2015, while working from January 30, 2014 to March 03, 2015, and ordered to report to Ranchi University. This second suspension was lifted on January 17, 2019.
On January 25, 2019, Ranchi University compulsorily retired Petitioner under section 67 of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. Despite her retirement, she didn’t receive her pension, gratuity, leave encashment, and group insurance benefits due to the pending criminal cases. After multiple denied claims, she filed a writ petition seeking pension and gratuity benefits.
ISSUES INVOLVED
The main contentions of the dispute are as follows:
- Whether the denial of pension and other benefits to the Petitioner by the State due to pending criminal cases justified.
- Whether mere pendency of criminal case can be the ground for withholding pensionary benefits.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE PETITIONER
- The Petitioner argued that throughout her service no departmental proceedings were initiated.
- The Petitioner also argued that out of six criminal cases, three are still pending and she had not been convicted in any of them.
- The Petitioner further argued that her suspension during judicial custody was revoked, and she continued to perform her duties subsequently.
- The Petitioner also argued that she received suspension allowances during the period of her suspensions, indicating that her service was recognized despite the ongoing legal issues.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT
- The Respondent argued that the Petitioner was not entitled to pensionary benefits due to the serious criminal charges pending against her, which involves moral turpitude.
- The Respondent further contended that the Petitioner was arrested by the Vigilance Department and sent to jail on June 02, 2011.
- The Respondent further contended that despite her release on bail and revocation of suspension in 2014, the severity of the charges justified her subsequent suspensions and the withholding of her benefits.
THE HIGH COURT’S RULING
The court emphasized that pension and gratuity are rights earned by an employee through long and faithful service, not mere bounties. In the case of RAGHAVENDRA ACHARYA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, the Supreme Court noted that pension is akin to deferred salary and a right of property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, 1949 which states that no person can be deprived of their property without legal authority. The court referenced the case of DR. DUDH NATH PANDEY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND, which held that there is no power under the Bihar Pension Rules to withhold gratuity and pension during pending proceedings.
Additionally, in STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. JITENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, the Supreme Court clarified that mere pendency of criminal cases cannot justify withholding pensionary benefits. The court directed the employer to fix Petitioner’s pension considering the 6th and 7th pay revisions, and to calculate and disburse the due amounts for gratuity, leave encashment, and other benefits within 12 weeks.
CONCLUSION
This case underscores a significant precedent in the protection of employee rights, particularly concerning pension and gratuity benefits amidst ongoing criminal proceedings. The Jharkhand High Court’s ruling emphasizes that pension and gratuity are earned entitlements that cannot be arbitrarily withheld. This case underscores the legal protection of these benefits under Indian law, even amid ongoing criminal proceedings, reinforcing the notion that financial security in retirement is a right, not a privilege. It highlights the importance of ensuring financial security for retirees. This judgment serves as a critical reminder of the need to balance legal processes with the fundamental rights and dignities of employees.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
