CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6593 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 21,2011 Ram Bhagat .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Patter, DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner was an employee of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, from where he had retired on the post of J.E. On 30.9.2007. The Department released the amount of leave encashment and 75% of pension and has withheld the remaining pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner such as gratuity CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6593 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: etc. The petitioner would urge that 25% of the pension and commutation of pension has been withheld without any reason or legal justification. The petitioner has made representation for release of retiral benefits so withheld but to no avail. In response, the respondents issued a letter to the petitioner mentioning that his retiral dues have been withheld on account of some shortcomings pointed out by the Chief Auditor, U.H.B.V.N., Rohtak, and this is due to want of No Due Certificate. The petitioner being aggrieved against the same, has now approached this Court through the present writ petition to urge that the action on the part of the respondents is totally unjustified, illegal and, thus, would liable to be quashed. Joint reply on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 has been filed. It is stated that no fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed. How this stand would be justified really can not be made out. The averment that the service record of the petitioner was blotless and unblemished is denied. Rather, it is pointed out that the petitioner is a habitual offender and even faced vigilance enquiry. Reference is made to some show cause notices, which were issued and pending. Reference is made to charge sheet dated 13.11.2006 alongwith statement of allegations and statement of charges, which is pending against the petitioner. The justification to withhold the part of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits is made on the ground that this is done to avoid legal consequences and financial hardship to the petitioner and by granting sanction for 75% provisional pension, the Department is statedly have acted fairly. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6593 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: Learned counsel for the respondents, when asked to show the provision under which the respondents could withhold the part of pension payable to the petitioner pending enquiry or finalisation of any case, was unable to point out to any provision in this regard. Counsel would rather say that the enquiry, which was pending against the petitioner, has since been finalised by imposing stoppage of two increments without future effect. Once the petitioner has already retired, it would be open to question whether this punishment could legally be imposed on the petitioner or not? Be that as it may, that is not the issue which would arise for consideration in the present case. What is required to be seen is whether there is any authority with the respondents to withhold the pension, gratuity and other retiral dues of the petitioner on account of pendency of enquiry. No provision has been pointed out before me, which would authorise to the respondents to withhold pension, gratuity etc. of the petitioner. In any event, counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the charges, which were statedly pending and which, according to counsel for the respondents, have now been finalised. There is no serious allegation made against the petitioner, which could lead to forfeiture or recovery of any amount. Thus, there was hardly any need to withhold the retiral benefits of the petitioner. In fact, the action of the respondents is wholly unjustified in law and, therefore, can not be sustained. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. The impugned letter, Annexure P-1, dated 18.7.2008, is set-aside. Direction hereby is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6593 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: issued to the respondents to release the remaining part of pension, gratuity and other retiral dues to the petitioner within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order. The amount so due would carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date it was due to the date of payment. The petitioner would be at liberty to impugn the order of punishment, if any passed. February 21,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE