HC raps Haryana for withholding pension; calls conduct ‘disturbing insensitivity’ towards retired officer

Rapping Haryana for “disturbing insensitivity” towards a retired government servant, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the State acted “without authority of law” in withholding retirement and pensionary dues of its retired Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner. Five years after his retirement, the bench also directed the release of all his dues with interest.

The ruling by Justice Sandeep Moudgil came in a case where the petitioner-employee retired on December 31, 2020. But his retirement entitlements —including gratuity, commutation, and pensionary benefits — were not released even though no proceeding was pending against him.

Justice Moudgil asserted that the State initiated a charge sheet nine months after superannuation — on October 5, 2021 — under the provisions of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016, for alleged supervisory lapses of 2012. But any such action was barred in law.

Referring to the HCS (Pension) Rules, 2016, Justice Moudgil asserted its close reading “would make it clear that it places an express embargo on the institution of departmental proceedings in relation to any event which occurred more than four years prior to the date of retirement”.

Referring to the facts of the case, Justice Moudgil asserted the alleged lapses occurred in 2012, eight years before the petitioner’s retirement in 2020. As such, “any departmental inquiry initiated in 2021 was ex-facie barred by the statutory limitation”.

Justice Moudgil added the disciplinary authority itself withdrew the charge sheet on January 29, while directing the release of all retirement dues. “After such withdrawal, no departmental or judicial proceedings whatsoever remained pending against the petitioner. Once the charge sheet was annulled, the statutory foundation for withholding retirement dues automatically ceased,” the court observed.

The bench held that the continued withholding of pensionary benefits, despite explicit departmental directions to release the same, was not only without authority of law but also amounted “to arbitrary exercise of power, defeating the protective object of the Pension Rules”.

Justice Moudgil asserted that the respondents were left with no lawful basis to treat any departmental proceedings as pending as the chargesheet itself was non-est or non-existent in law having been subsequently annulled.

Justice Moudgil asserted the court could not remain oblivious to the hardship caused to the petitioner. After rendering more than three decades of dedicated service, he was entitled to dignity and fairness at the time of retirement. Instead, he was subjected to an invalid charge sheet issued long after superannuation, followed by prolonged administrative silence.

“Even after the charge sheet was formally withdrawn, the authorities continued to deny him his rightful pension, causing undue mental, financial and emotional distress. Such conduct reflects a disturbing insensitivity on the part of the State towards its retired employee and falls short of the standard of fairness, responsibility and compassion expected from a welfare-oriented administration. It is precisely this kind of inattentive and unjust administrative behaviour that the pension rules seek to prevent,” the bench asserted.

Allowing the writ petition, the court ordered release of all retirement dues along with interest at nine per cent per annum from date of accrual till realisation.