The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No, 24371/2012 claiming the release of pensionary benefits gratuity and 6 month's salary which was not paid inspite of the fact that petitioner was retired 03 years ago, the petitioner was orally informed that due to pendency of departmental inquiry and proceedings in Anti Corruption Court he is not entitled for pensionary benefits. This. Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's grievance through a reasoned order after providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner. The petitioner appeared before respondent on 13.10.2012. The petitioner's request was accorded subject to providing undertaking as per letter dated 19:10.2012.
The petitioner thus has assailed the impugned order dated 01.11.2012.
2. The petitioner asserts that the case pending against the petitioner before Anti-Corruption Court has no nexus with the release of pensionary benefits of a retired employee. The Deputy Director (Legal) WASA has already given his opinion to Respondent No, 1 on 1.11.2012 for release of petitioner's salary w.e.f 11.11.2009 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has been retired 03 years ago and no inquiry can be initiated against him under the PEEDA Rules. Show-cause notice was issued on 11.5.2009 and after that no proceedings took place and as such initiation of inquiry against the petitioner is without lawful authority.
3. Notices were issued to respondents, they filed report and parawise comments. The respondents in their report and parawise comments have admitted that an office order has been issued vide No, Admn/ADA-II/16450-55 dated 01.11.2012. It is further admitted that the show-cause notice was issued under the PEEDA Act, the Deputy Director (Legal) present in Court confirms that under Section 21 of the PEEDA Act, 2006 the petitioner is entitled for grant of his benefits of retirement.
4. Learned counsel for respondents when confronted with the Section 21 of the PEEDA Act that all proceedings initiated against the employees having retired or in service, shall be governed by the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder and in case of retired employee, the proceedings so initiated against him shall be finalized not later than two years of his retirement.
The petitioner has been retired from service 03 years ago and as such if the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner have not been finalized within 02 years the proceedings could not continue, the petitioner's pensionary benefits cannot be withheld. Learned counsel is unable to controvert the legal position.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was retired on 10.11.2009, earlier the petitioner's services were terminated but on 3.1.2009 the petitioner was reinstated. The petitioner was again issued show-cause notice under the earlier proceedings which stand finalized and petitioner's case was sent to Anti-corruption department.
6. The above said facts are not denied by learned counsel for respondents. It is an admitted fact that petitioner was reinstated on 03.1.2009, his matter was sent to Anti-corruption department, the petitioner was released on bail by the Court, he retired on 10.11.2009 after completing 41 years with WASA, his application remained pending for release of pensionary benefits but respondents are withholding the said amount due to pendency of case before Anti-corruption department.
Admittedly Anti-corruption Court will either acquit the petitioner or will convict him even after his retirement. The pension and its benefits are nothing to do with the conviction of petitioner and as such withholding of petitioner's pensionary benefits is an illegal act on the part of respondents.
7. In view of above, the petition is allowed, the respondents are directed to release the petitioner's pensionary benefits etc.