Saiyed Haider Abbas Raza, Ram Kishore Singh, JJ. - (1.) THE petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30th April, 1992. The petitioner was paid only provisional pension. However, on 4.5.1996 an order was passed for the payment of full pension to the petitioner. On 12th February, 1997 arrears of pension was paid to the petitioner and since then he is being paid the full pension. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that under Regulation 470(b) of Civil Service Regulation a show cause was issued to the petitioner with regard to the certain alleged act of misconduct on 25th July, 1995 indicating therein as to why his pension be not withheld or reduced for the alleged act of misconduct committed in between the year 1980 to 1983. The attention of this Court was drawn towards Regulation 351(A)(2) of the Civil Services Regulation which reads as under: - - 351A. - -The Governor further reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if in a departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re -employment after retirement; - - Provided that: (a) Such departmental proceedings, if instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during is re -employment, shall after the final retirement of the officer, be deemed to be a proceeding under this article and shall be continued by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service: (b) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re -employment. (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution, and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the President may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service; (c) no such judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his re -employment shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and (d) The Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed: Explanation: For the purpose of his article: (a) a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the officer or pensioner or if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date; and (b) a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted. (i) In the case of a criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of police officer on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made; and (ii) in the case of a civil proceeding, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the court. A perusal of the aforesaid regulation clearly indicates that Governor has a right to withdraw a portion or any part of it permanently or for a specified period and also has a right to order the recovery from the pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if the pensioner has been found to be guilty of gross misconduct either in departmental or judicial proceedings or to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence during the course of his service including the services rendered on re -employment after retirement, but the said regulation has a rider which provides that such alleged act of misconduct or negligence, during the course of the services may be an event which takes place in more than four years before the institution of such proceedings.
(2.) IN the present case, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in the year 1995 for the alleged act of mis -conduct or negligence resulting into pecuniary loss to the Government with respect to an event which took place not within four years. Hence proceedings initiated against the petitioner were non -est and may be for mat reason, the proceedings are dropped and the authorities directed on 4.5.1996 for the payment of full pension to the petitioner. The arrears of pension was paid to the petitioner on 20.7.1997 and since then he has been regularly paid pension. It is well settled that pension is earned by the public servant. It is not a bounty which is to be distributed by the State Government to the public servant. There are numerous cases in which Hon'ble Supreme Court went to the extent of commanding the respondents to pay pension with interest to the petitioner at the rate of 18% per annum. In one case, Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the payment of pension to the public servant at the rate of 24%. If for any justifiable reason, the pension is withheld, then certainly it can be said that the delay in payment of pension can be condoned.
(3.) THERE are Government Orders and Rules that a month before retirement pension papers should be prepared in advance, and the pension should be paid as soon as public servant retires. At the most it can be presumed that there may be slight delay of one month after the date of retirement because pension papers have to go to the Accountant General Office for clearance, but an inordinate delay in payment of pension without sufficient reason cannot be justified. In the present case, proceedings were initiated under Civil Services Regulation 470 but as the proceedings were not in accordance with Civil Services Regulation 351(A), same were dropped, hence it cannot be presumed that there existed any sufficient cause for non -payment of pension at least from the date of retirement or a month thereafter. In view of the aforesaid reason, we allow this writ petition and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 12% with effect from 31st May, 1992 till the date of actual payment of pension.;