Retired Bihar employee who faced criminal cases wins back pension

Observing that a pension is a deferred portion of compensation earned through long years of service, the court said on June 23, “It is a hard-earned benefit accruing to an employee in the nature of property. It is not a bounty to be disbursed contrary to rules, but the very basis for the grant of such pension is to facilitate a retired government employee to live with dignity in the winter of his life.”

The dispute arose after the Bihar government refused to release a substantial portion of the man’s retirement benefits following his superannuation on March 31, 2022, citing the pendency of multiple criminal cases linked to the alleged embezzlement of funds from the Jehanabad Treasury more than two decades ago.

Chaudhuri examined Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules, which empowers the government to withhold or withdraw pension if a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime. (File Image)

Retirement benefits withheld

The complainant approached the high court challenging a July 8, 2022 communication issued by the state tax additional commissioner-cum-joint secretary to the accountant general stating that only 90 per cent provisional pension had been sanctioned and that gratuity would remain withheld until the conclusion of judicial proceedings.

He sought release of full pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral benefits. According to the petitioner, several criminal cases were registered against him in 2004 in connection with alleged treasury embezzlement. While he secured acquittals in some of the cases, others remained pending for years.

He also pointed out that departmental proceedings initiated against him had already concluded. The inquiry resulted only in a minor punishment of withholding two increments, after which he was allowed to continue in service and worked until retirement.

State defends action

The Bihar government opposed the petition and argued that 10 per cent of the pension amount, gratuity, leave encashment and group insurance benefits had been withheld because criminal proceedings against the petitioner had not concluded. The state relied on provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, to justify its decision.

Court’s findings

• The high court noted that the central issue was whether retiral benefits could continue to be withheld merely because criminal cases had remained pending for over 22 years.
• Justice Chaudhuri examined Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules, which empowers the government to withhold or withdraw pension if a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or found guilty of grave misconduct.
• The court said the complainant had neither been convicted in any criminal case nor found guilty of grave misconduct during departmental proceedings.
• The judge further pointed out that the only punishment imposed in the departmental inquiry was the minor penalty of withholding two increments.

Final order

The court said the settled legal principle that it is not a discretionary payment. “Such a right cannot be curtailed by way of an executive fiat. Power to curtail pension or any portion thereof must be based on valid ground in accordance with law,” it added.

The court held that Rule 43 clearly permits withholding of pension only when a person is convicted or punished for grave misconduct. Since neither circumstance existed in the complainant’s case, the continued withholding of his retiral benefits was found to be unauthorised.

Allowing the writ petition, the high court directed the Bihar authorities to clear all withheld retiral dues of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the judgment.

Significance

The ruling is likely to be cited in similar disputes involving retired government employees whose pensionary benefits remain frozen for years due to pending criminal proceedings that have not resulted in conviction, reinforcing the principle that pension is a hard-earned right and a source of dignity and financial security in old age.