Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9613 of 2003 ====================================================== Madan Mohan Lal Das, son of late Gangadhar Lal Das, resident of Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Police Station- Agam Kuan, Town and District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through it’s Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Accounts Officer (Fund, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
Legal Reasoning
9. It is settled law that the commutation of pension is not integral part of the pension but an additional benefit to the retiring employees. The stand of the Board is that two departmental proceedings were started against the petitioner. In one of the proceedings, he was exonerated and in the second proceeding which was started just a few months of his retirement, a punishment withholding of 20% of pension in the year 2002 was inflicted. The petitioner moved this Court in writ jurisdiction. The order of punishment was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded and on remand fresh order withholding of 20% of 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.9613 of 2003 (15) dt.15-07-2013 4 / 5 pension has been ordered on 23.12.2011. 10. I find that the commutation of pension of the petitioner has been withheld on the ground that a departmental proceeding was pending against him. A Division Bench of this Court in case of Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna & Ors. Vs. Ramjee Prasad Singh, reported in 2003(3) PLJR 435 observed that commutation of pension cannot be withheld where a departmental proceeding has not been initiated under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The said is not the situation in the instant case, where a departmental proceeding was initiated just after retirement of the petitioner. As per Division Bench decision in case of Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna & Ors. Vs. Ramjee Prasad Singh (supra), an employer can be denied commutation of pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding. Furthermore, the respondent Board has found the petitioner guilty of charge and has been inflicted punishment of withholding 20% of the pension. If a person has been found guilty in a departmental proceeding, the employer would be within its right to decline commutation of pension. The commutation of pension is an additional benefit granted to an employee, who has not been proceeded with or found wanting in departmental or convicted in criminal proceeding. 11. Thus in my view where a person has been 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.9613 of 2003 (15) dt.15-07-2013 5 / 5 inflicted punishment in a departmental proceeding, he loses benefit of commutation of pension. It appears that the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment in CWJC no. 6950 of 2012. In case, the petitioner succeeds, it will be open for him to make a representation before the respondent authorities. 12. With the aforesaid observation, this application is
Arguments
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratan Prasad Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 15 15-07-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Board. 2. The petitioner superannuated from service of the Board on 31.01.2001 while he was posted as Electrical Superintending Engineer (U/S) at Board’s Head Quarter, Patna. 3. The petitioner has prayed for his retiral dues. The relief now is confined to commutation of pension as well as for grant of interest on leave encashment and gratuity. 4. Prior to retirement of petitioner, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide order dated 14.09.2000. The Board exonerated the petitioner in the said departmental proceeding. It is not in dispute that another departmental 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.9613 of 2003 (15) dt.15-07-2013 2 / 5 proceeding was started against the petitioner on 31.03.2001. On 12.12.2002 a punishment withholding of 20% pension was inflicted. The petitioner challenged the said order in C.W.J.C. No.9236 of 2003. In the said writ petition the order of punishment was set aside with liberty to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law. The Board hence proceeded afresh and again awarded punishment withholding 20% of pension on 23.12.2011. The said decision is in challenge in C.W.J.C. No.6950 of 2012, which is pending. 5. The Board belatedly paid the gratuity and leave encashment amount in the year 2012. He further submits that the Board had illegally denied commutation of pension. Learned counsel submits that the Board has taken ground of weak financial position to deny commutation of pension to the petitioner, whereas at the same time it has commuted pension of persons retiring subsequently. Learned counsel further submits that even assuming that 20% of the pension has been withheld in view of penalty imposed in the Departmental proceeding, the petitioner would be entitled to commutation of pension on 80% of the final pension. 6. Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the Board, submits that the pension is commuted only in cases where 100% pension is sanctioned and not on anything less than that. He submits that if 20% of pension is withheld, the privilege of 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.9613 of 2003 (15) dt.15-07-2013 3 / 5 commutation is not permissible. 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties. This Court in case of Mohan Prasad Asthana Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors, reported in 2005(4) PLJR 47 held that commutation of pension is not an integral part of retiral benefits but it is by way of additional benefits, which is provided to employee at his option. Since the decision is administrative, the employer can restrict commutation of pension on any valid ground without any discrimination or favour. In other words, if commutation of pension is not paid on the ground of financial crunch, then it should be denied to all and sundry. 8. The case of the petitioner is that some of the employees have been allowed commutation of pension.