The Orissa High Court has ruled that retired government functionaries whose pensions were suspended following conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act are not entitled to post-retirement benefits until acquittal by a superior court.
“A mere appeal against an order of conviction and suspension of sentence does not entitle a public servant to restoration of pension,” observed Justice RK Pattanaik, who delivered the judgment while dismissing writ petitions filed by convicted former officials.
The Single Bench stated that pension and associated benefits can only be granted if the conviction itself is stayed. “Only if the order of conviction is stayed by a Court in appeal, only then, a pensioner shall receive pension with other benefits but not otherwise,” the court stated.
Any interpretation other than the one resorted to vis-à-vis the definition of judicial proceeding occurring the Rules would lead to absurdity and make the provisions of the Rules nugatory, Justice Pattanaik ruled.
The writ petitions were filed by the petitioners for a direction to the Government to sanction provisional pension in their favour pending decision in connection with the judicial proceedings
The withholding of pension and gratuity in view of the orders of the conviction is unjust, arbitrary and not legally tenable, the petitioners’ counsel argued.
The petitioners were convicted under prevention of corruption act in the Vigilance proceedings.Although their sentences are currently under appeal, they have not received pension payments since 2017, when provisional pension was discontinued.The issue involved for adjudication is, whether, the petitioners, who have been convicted in criminal cases would be entitled to grant of pension including the provisional pension, the order said.
The Court is also of the view that mere filing of the appeal against an order of conviction and managing suspension of sentence does not entitle restoration of pension to a public servant.
The Court, however, held that simply filing an appeal and securing suspension of sentence does not restore eligibility for pension. The petitioners could have demanded suspension of conviction for the fact that much after superannuation, the provisional pension was discontinued only in the year 2017 for appropriate orders, which may even be pleaded now.
“But, having not obtained any such orders, the provisional pension cannot be allowed when the orders of conviction are in force and the Court is not inclined to accept the argument that pendency of the appeals amounts to continuation of the judicial proceeding,” Justice Pattanaik ruled in the order.
In other words, this Court is of the view that the decision towards stoppage of provisional pension in favour of the petitioners suffers from no legal infirmity, the Court concluded.