Commutation of pension cannot be withheld indefinitely based on potential restoration of closed disciplinary proceedings.

The petitioner, a Scientist-C at the Tripura State Pollution Control Board (TSPCB), retired on 31.03.2021

Prior to retirement, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him by a junior officer (Member Secretary), leading to a previous legal challenge where the Division Bench quashed the proceedings but allowed for a fresh inquiry by a non-subordinate authority

Subsequently, the Chairman of TSPCB initiated three fresh departmental proceedings

However, on 22.04.2025, the Inquiring Authority closed all three proceedings on grounds of maintainability/objection

Despite the closure and the release of other pensionary benefits, the respondents withheld the petitioner’s commutation of pension, citing a pending request dated 28.04.2025 sent to the Inquiring Authority to review the closure orders

1. Whether the respondents are legally justified in withholding the commutation of pension when the departmental proceedings have been closed by the Inquiring Authority.

2. Whether a pending administrative request for review of an inquiry officer's order constitutes "pendency of proceedings" under the relevant pension rules.

Rule 13 of the Tripura State Pollution Control Board Employees’ Group Superannuation Scheme, which permits withholding commutation only if departmental or judicial proceedings are pending

Constitutional mandate of Article 300A, recognizing pensionary benefits as a right to property that cannot be deprived without the authority of law

Principle established in State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, which prohibits withholding pensionary benefits during the pendency of proceedings unless specifically authorized by statute, and emphasizes that such power cannot be invoked on the basis of mere administrative circulars

The court reasoned that at the material time, no departmental proceedings were legally pending against the petitioner because they had been formally closed by the Inquiring Authority on 22.04.2025

The court observed that the respondent-department’s letter dated 28.04.2025, requesting a review of the closure, did not suffice to treat the proceedings as "pending" for the purpose of withholding benefits, especially since the Inquiring Authority had failed to act on the request for over a year

Furthermore, the court scrutinized the nature of the charges and found no allegations of financial defalcation or pecuniary loss to the department

Consequently, keeping the petitioner’s benefits in a state of "uncertain period" due to administrative stagnation was found to be a violation of the petitioner’s rights

The court directed respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to release the commutation of pension with 7% interest per annum from the due date until payment, within two months, subject to an undertaking by the petitioner to refund the amount if found liable in the future

Respondent No. 5 (Inquiring Authority) was directed to dispose of the department’s review petition dated 28.04.2025 within two weeks