- (1.) HEARD finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE facts in short are that respondent-employee was in the employment of the State of Rajasthan. He was involved in a criminal case under Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently, he was convicted. An order was passed on 14.3.2005 withholding benefit of pension as well as gratuity which was questioned before the Single Bench. It was further submitted that denial of benefit of leave encashment was also not proper. He was also suspended during pendency of criminal case. He also prayed for payment of wages for the period of suspension minus payment of subsistence allowance. The Single Bench has held that as the respondent has been convicted in a criminal case though appeal is pending against same, under Rule-7 of the Rajasthan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1996, if a person is convicted then benefit of pension can be stopped and appropriate order can be passed. Withholding of pension has been upheld under Rule-7 of the Rules of 1996 till respondent's conviction is not set aside. With respect to leave encashment and benefit during suspension period, direction has been issued to decide claim of the respondent inasmuch as if no order was passed regarding suspension period, necessary order may be passed in accordance with law. Direction has also issued to consider the question of leave encashment. It has also been observed that in case respondent is acquitted, he would be entitled for the pensionary benefits and so far as claim of gratuity is concerned, the appellants are under obligation to consider the case of the respondent as there is no rule debarring him for grant of gratuity on conviction. The order passed by the Single Bench has been questioned by way of filing intra-court appeal. Shri R.P. Singh, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the appellant State has submitted that direction could not have been issued by the Single Bench for payment of gratuity. At the most, respondent could be said to be entitled for leave encashment. Pension has rightly been withheld. He has further submitted that as per Rule-54 of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, decision has to be taken with respect to regularization of period of suspension. Shri Mahendra Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the employee is entitled for payment of gratuity for which direction has rightly been issued by the Single Bench. Benefit of leave encashment also cannot be withheld. Period of suspension is also to be regularized. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that gratuity has rightly been withheld as gratuity is included in pension as defined in the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules. As per Rule-3(p), pension includes gratuity except when the term pension is used in contradistinction to gratuity; but does not include dearness relief and interim relief. Rule-7 deals with withholding of pension which included gratuity. Thus, gratuity could have been withheld alongwith pension.
(3.) THE Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 47 has laid down that withholding of pension by way of punishment includes gratuity. Similar is the view taken by the Apex Court in Union of India and Anr. Vs. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463 in the context of Rule 9(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. In view of aforesaid decisions, we find that the order passed with respect to withholding of pension and gratuity is appropriate. However, the same shall be subject to decision of criminal appeal. In case, the respondent is acquitted, he may file representation to revise the order withholding pension and gratuity. However, so far as benefit of leave encashment is concerned, it is directed that appellant shall release payment of leave encashment in case it has not been released so far. However, with respect to regularizing the period of suspension, let the State Government issue a show cause and thereafter decide the question of regularization of period of suspension in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule-54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. With the aforesaid directions, the intra-court appeal is partly allowed. The order passed by the Single Bench is modified to the aforesaid extent. Stay application is also disposed of. No costs. ;