Service Law – Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) – Kerala Service Rule – Rules 3 & 3A – Interpretation of – On conviction in a criminal case for violation of integrity norms in performance of official duties and an appeal pending before the High Court, whether the employee is still entitled to the release of his DCRG – Held: Rule 3A cannot be read in isolation nor the latter part of it struck down – Rule 3, Note 2, Ruling 3, and Rule 3A have to be read in conjunction as they provide for the treatment of the DCRG in case of disciplinary or judicial proceedings pending at the stage of retirement – Even in absence of these proceedings in certain eventualities the amounts can be recovered from the DCRG – An appeal is a continuation of the proceedings in trial and would be, thus, a continuation of judicial proceedings – Pendency of the appeal cannot disentitle the State from withholding the DCRG, considering that it is a hiatus period within which certain arrangements have to be made which would be dependent on the outcome of the appeal – It cannot be opined that the DCRG would have to be released pending consideration of the criminal appeal. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. The very objectives of holding back pension or the DCRG must be kept in mind. One can be to recover the amounts found due from the delinquent employee of any nature whatsoever after appropriate notice and proceedings. The second eventuality is if an employee is dismissed from service. It can hardly be doubted that in the second eventuality of the dismissal from service the employee would lose all retirement benefits. [Para 28][303-B-C]
2. The important aspect is whether Rule 3A is to be construed in the context of Rule 3 or should be read independently of itself. The High Court seeks to take a view that Rule 3A is in a sense assisting Rule 3 and does not have any independent existence. One is unable to agree to this line of reasoning. Rule 3 commences where the Government reserves to themselves the right to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and all its ramifications. Certain protective provisions have been made even in that eventuality. This provision is applicable to pension is clarified by Note 2, as it is stipulated that the word ‘pension’ would not include DCRG. Thus, DCRG and pension have been dealt with as separate aspects. However, Note 2 provides that the liabilities fixed against an employee or a pensioner can be recovered from DCRG without the departmental/judicial proceedings referred to in this Rule but after giving an employee or pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity to explain. Rule 3A starts which refers to the grant of provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension which would have been admissible on retirement where departmental or judicial proceedings have been initiated under Rule 3. It is clearly stipulated that no gratuity or DCRG shall be paid to him until the conclusion of such proceedings and the issuance of final order thereof. [Paras 31-35][304-B, E-G; 305-B-C]
3. The High Court has introduced a new legislation by undertaking the exercise of reading down. There is absolutely no need to do so when the language of the rule is so clear conveying its intended meaning without any ambiguity. Rule 3A cannot be read in isolation nor the latter part of it struck down as done by the High Court. Rule 3, Note 2, Ruling 3, and Rule 3A have to be read in conjunction as they provide for the treatment of the DCRG in case of disciplinary or judicial proceedings pending at the stage of retirement. Even in the absence of these proceedings in certain eventualities the amounts can be recovered from the DCRG. [Paras 36 & 37][305-C-E]
4. Also, it is a very restrictive view to disburse DCRG on account of the proceedings against a pensioner coming to an end, even where a conviction has arisen. This is especially so where the convicted person has availed of the remedy of appeal. The pendency of the appeal cannot disentitle the State from withholding the DCRG, considering that it is a hiatus period within which certain arrangements have to be made which would be dependent on the outcome of the appeal. It cannot be opined that the DCRG would have to be released pending consideration of the criminal appeal. [Paras 39 and 42][307-D, E-F; 308-A-B]
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields v. Rabindranath Choubey (2020) 18 SCC 71 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.