IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (SS) 196 of 2009 Dalveer Singh Bisht ….Petitioner Versus Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry and others. …..Respondents Present : Mr. Tanuj Semwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Tanuj Semwal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.02.2011. Now a restoration application has been filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 17.2.2011 along with an application for condonation of delay (MCC No. 147 of 2011). The reasons assigned for delay in filing the restoration application appear to be just and bonafide. Delay condonation application (MCC No. 147 of 2011) is allowed. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. The reasons assigned for recalling the order dated 17.2.2011 and restoring the case to its original number appear to be just and bonafide. Restoration Application (MCC No. 147 of 2011) is allowed. Order dated 17.2.2011 is recalled and the case is restored to its original number. Heard on merits. It is important and in the interest of justice that Director, Accountant and Entitlement, Dehradun Uttarakhand is impleaded as respondent no.5. Let the same be done during the course of the day. Respondent no. 5 is represented by the Standing Counsel Sri N.P. Shah before this court, who states that the arguments 2 already submitted on behalf of the other respondents shall be adopted in case of respondent no.5 as well. The counsel represent the State of Uttarakhand very fairly admits that no fresh counter affidavit needs to be filed by him as the newly impleaded respondent is also represented by him and there are documents by this authority which are available on record. The petitioner was government servant in the department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Uttarakhand. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.5.2008. All the same, the petitioner has not received his pension as yet. Apart from this, there are some other post retirement benefits which the petitioner has not received. Hence the present writ petition with the prayer that the respondents be directed to release the pension of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, the state has admitted the facts that the petitioner was a government servant and is entitled to pension. The reasons though assigned by the respondents for not giving the pension to the petitioner that after retirement the petitioner has to complete certain formalities in accordance with the Pension Rules, which are applicable in the case of the petitioner, which require that the petitioner has to submit a form with his photograph as well as photograph of his wife before the respondents. All the same, these formalities have not been completed. Apart from this, the petitioner’s wife has also complained that for the last more than 20 years she is not staying with her husband and she has claimed those post retirement benefits. These are in fact the grounds on which the respondent has withheld the pension of the petitioner. Apart from this ground, there are no other grounds for withholding the pension of the petitioner. 3 It is also admitted by the petitioner that the relation between his wife Smt. Kamla Devi are strained and she is living separately for the last more than 20 years and he as husband is giving her maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. On these admitted set of facts, this Court is of the considered view that respondents have no reason for withholding the pension of the petitioner or any of his post retirement benefits. The ground on which the pension of the petitioner as well as other post retirement benefits have been withheld are not legally maintainable. Petitioner has not fulfilled certain procedures, such as he has not submitted the signature of his wife as only procedural requirement. Non-fulfilment of such procedural requirement does not disentitle the petitioner from something as valuable and important as his pension. It has been repeatedly held by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court that pension is not a bounty, but it is right of a government servant, which cannot be withheld by the Government. As such, respondent no. 2 and newly added respondent no.5 are hereby directed to immediately release the pension of the petitioner as well as other post retirement benefits of the petitioner. Since the pension and other post retirement benefits have been withheld for absolutely no plausible reason, it would also be necessary that arrears of pension as well as arrears of post retirement dues, which have been so withheld, the respondents shall release the same to the petitioner. It is also directed as has already been stated above that the pension shall be released forthwith but in no condition it shall be delayed beyond a period of four weeks from the date certified copies of this order is produced before the authority concerned along with a simple interest of 6% on the arrears. At the same time, it 4 is made clear that though the wife of the petitioner had no right to even ask the present authorities to withhold the pension of the petitioner and the concerned authorities were not justified in withholding the pension of the petitioner, if the objections were made by the wife of the petitioner. Yet, in the interest of justice, respondent no. 2 and 5 shall inform the wife of the petitioner (who is presently not a party before this Court) about their decision to release the pension to the petitioner in view of the orders of this Court so that she may take recourse to appropriate legal remedy, if she is so advised. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.07.2011 Kuldeep