Judgment:
1. Heard and gone through the record.
2. Petitioner’s husband was an employee of Forest Department. He sought voluntary retirement, in the year 1997. His request was acceded to and he was retired, w.e.f. 31st January, 1997. It appears that after voluntary retirement, departmental proceedings were initiated against the husband of the petitioner. Those proceedings remained pending till the death of the husband of the petitioner, which took place on 10th September, 1999. It was after the death of the husband of the petitioner that pension and gratuity were sanctioned in favour of the petitioner.
Though the husband of the petitioner, during his life time and soon after his voluntary retirement, had applied for grant of pension, gratuity and commutation of pension, but the matter had been in correspondence between the State Government and the Accountant General, so long as the husband of the petitioner was alive.
3. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, when pension had been sanctioned and payment of gratuity had already been made, petitioner filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking a direction to the respondents to allow commutation of pension, for which application had been made by her husband, during his life time and also to grant benefit of ACP, which was due to the deceased, in the year 1985, when he completed eight years service.
4. After the abolition of the Tribunal, in the year 2008, matter came to this Court and was re-registered as CWP(T) No.7858 of 2008 with the Registry of this Court.
5. Respondents, in their replies, have stated that since departmental proceedings were pending against the husband of the petitioner, during his life time, he was not entitled to commutation of pension. As regards the relief of grant of ACP, it is stated that ACP had not been sanctioned, in view of the clarificatory letter Annexure R-1, issued by the Government.
6. So far as claim of the petitioner, for commutation of pension, is concerned, admittedly departmental proceedings were pending against the deceased, when he died and those proceedings were dropped only because of the death of the husband of the petitioner.
7. Rule-4 of CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 says that a Government servant, against whom departmental or judicial proceedings, as referred to in Rule-9 of the Pension Rules, have been instituted, before the date of his retirement or the pensioner against whom such proceedings are instituted, after the date of his retirement, shall not be eligible to commute a fraction of his provisional pension authorized under Rule 69 of the Pension Rules or the pension, as the case may be, during the pendency of such proceedings.
8. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that petitioner’s husband’s case was not covered by Rule-4 of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, as no provisional pension had been sanctioned in his favour. I am of the view that the case of the husband of the petitioner was worse than the case of a pensioner, who is granted provisional pension, because in his case no pension had been sanctioned.
Pension was sanctioned only after the death of the husband of the petitioner and that being the case, there was no question of commutation of any fraction of the pension of the husband of the petitioner, especially when he retired, not on attaining the age of superannuation, but sought voluntary retirement.
9. A person, who voluntarily retires, has to make an application for commutation of a fraction of his pension, after retirement, but within one year of such retirement. In the present case, application for commutation of pension is stated to have been made at the time of retirement, when other papers for grant of pension, gratuity, etc. were submitted.
10. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that petitioner’s husband was not entitled to commutation of pension.
11. As regards the prayer for grant of ACP to the husband of the petitioner, on completing eight years of service, respondents have stated that in view of clarificatory letter dated 10th May, 2000, copy Annexure R-1, petitioner’s husband’s case, for grant of ACP, was rejected. Annexure R-1, which is in the nature of a clarification, of some instruction contained in an earlier letter dated 15th December, 1998, says that only those persons are eligible for ACP benefit, whose 50 per cent reports are ‘Good’ and also two of the three last reports grade him as ‘Good’. This clarification would not come to the rescue of the respondents, for the reason that this clarifies the scheme of grant of ACP, notified vide letter dated 15th December, 1998. Petitioner’s husband had retired much before the issuance of not only the clarificatory letter, but also the letter which it clarifies. So, petitioner’s husband is held to be entitled to the second relief, regarding grant of ACP benefit, from the date he completed eight years service.
12. As a result of the above discussion, petition is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to give the benefit of ACP to the deceased husband of the petitioner, from the date he completed eight years service. Order, regarding grant of the aforesaid benefit, shall be issued, within one month and the arrears calculated and paid to the petitioner within next two months.
13. Pension and gratuity shall also be revised on the basic of pay that would work out at the time of her retirement, on the basis of ACP benefit.
14. Writ petition stands disposed of.