The Rajasthan High Court has provided relief to the heirs of a deceased government employee, whose retirement benefits were withheld by the government due to a case filed under Section 498A of the IPC. The case was brought against his son, himself, and other family members by his daughter-in-law.

The Court ruled that retirement benefits granted at the time of superannuation cannot be suspended due to an alleged criminal offense, especially when the offense is unrelated to the official discharge of duties.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain was hearing a petition filed by a retired government employee who had an allegedly exceptional and unquestionable service record. However, following his retirement, his daughter-in-law committed suicide, prompting her brother to file a case under Section 498A of the IPC against the petitioner's son, the petitioner himself, and other family members.

The trial led to a conviction, which was later suspended. Despite this, the government, without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, terminated his pension and retirement benefits under Rule 6(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 (“the Rules”). This action was subsequently approved by the governor under Rule 7 of the Rules. Rule 6 of the Rules stipulates that a pension may be suspended if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or found guilty of grave misconduct.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that Rule 7 of the Rules applied only when the pensioner was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during their period of service. Since the FIR against the petitioner was filed after his retirement, Rule 7 was not applicable in this case. Additionally, the counsel contended that there was no connection between the offense and the retirement benefits.

After reviewing arguments from both sides, the Court observed that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating Rule 6(3), which mandates providing the pensioner with a notice detailing the proposed action and its grounds. Additionally, the Court determined that the offense did not qualify as a 'serious crime' or 'grave misconduct' as defined under Rule 6.

The Court also noted that Rule 6 required an actual 'conviction' of the alleged offense, which was absent in this case since the conviction order had been suspended. Additionally, the Court opined that if the alleged charges were unrelated to the performance of official duties, they could not be grounds for withdrawing pension benefits.

It said:

“The alleged charges pertaining to a family dispute or any other dispute which does not have reasonable nexus with performance of official duties, is not a valid ground for suspension of the retiral benefits of the petitioner.”

Case Title: Raghuveer Narayan v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.