Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040017572024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/600/2024 Eto Ete Son of Late Kiri Ete, resident of Kugi Village, PO and PS Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh 791001 (retired Deputy Director of School Education, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh) VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors through the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Secretary (Vigilance) Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Commissioner (Education) Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 2/6 Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Under Secretary (Pension) Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Education Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Director (Pension) Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Audit and Pension Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Kamal Saxena, Eddie Payeng,Tapi Omo Advocate for the Respondent : Taba Tagum, GA (AP),SC (Education) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 04-04-2025 Heard Mr. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. Riram, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 & 5 and Mr. L. Tikhak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. T. Tagum, learned standing counsel for the Education Department representing respondents No. 3 & 4. Page No.# 3/6 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he has superannuated on 31.05.2024 as Deputy Director of School Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. However, his pensionary benefits have not been released. 3. It is projected that prior to his superannuation, on 06.02.20254, SIC(VIG) P.S. Case No. 5/2024 under Sections 120B/420409/468/471 IPC read with Section 13(2) of the Protection of Corruption Act was registered wherein the petitioner is also one of the several accused. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no order was passed under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which bestow power on the competent authority to withhold or withdraw pension. However, on the strength of order bearing No. VIG-71/2014/365 dated 25.02.2020, the disbursement of the pensionary benefits of the petitioner has been withheld. 4. It is projected that despite submission of representation dated 07.10.2024, the Vigilance Clearance was not given to the petitioner and accordingly, by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the State respondents to issue No Objection Certificate/Vigilance Clearance in respect of the petitioner to enable his pension and other retirement benefits to be released. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate has referred to the affidavit- in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 5 and has submitted that the SIC (VIG) Police are investigating the matter relating to illegal appointment of PRT, TGT and MTS in the Department of School Education. As per the report of the Investigating Officer, total of 295 staff have been detected to have been illegally appointed under the Directorate of School Education and accordingly, their services were terminated. In respect of the petitioner, it is submitted that he is being investigated for appointing of 9 (nine) Page No.# 4/6 Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS for short) in his capacity as Deputy Director of School Education, Aalo without following the established recruitment procedure and the services of illegally appointed 9 (nine) MTS were terminated. Accordingly, it is submitted that the authorities have rightly withheld the pensionary benefits from being disbursed to the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the respondent authorities have not violated any right of the petitioner and under the circumstances, withholding the pensionary benefits is justified. 6. It may be mentioned that CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 has been substituted by CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 which has notified in the Gazette of India on 20.12.2021, which would be applicable in the case of the petitioner as he has superannuated on 31.05.2024. 7. The issue raised by the petitioner in this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order of Division Bench this Court in the case of the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Shri A. C. Baruah, passed in W.A. No. 7/2021, decided on 24.09.2024 and reported in (2024) 0 Supreme (Gau) 1284. By the said judgment, this Court by referring to the Provision of Rule 9 (2)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 has held that the said provision does not apply to criminal proceedings. Relevant paragraph-27 to 30 thereof is quoted herein below: “27. In view of the above discussions made herein above, we are of the view that since no departmental proceedings has been initiated against the respondent/ petitioner, and only criminal proceedings have been instituted against him, the provisions of Rule 9(2)(b) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 cannot be invoked. We are also of the view that the learned Single Judge appears to have misconstrued the ratio of the decision in the case of Brajendra Singh Yambem (supra) because same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Page No.# 5/6 28. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.460(AP)/2019 stands set aside and quashed. 29. However, taking note of the fact that after passing of the impugned order the Government has already released the pension of the respondent/petitioner and he is getting his monthly pension, we think it proper to direct the appellants herein to continue the payment of monthly pension to the respondent/petitioner, however, the said payment would remain subject to any decision taken by the competent authority under Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 after conclusion of the criminal proceedings initiated against the respondent/ petitioner. 30. The writ appeal stands disposed of with the above directions.” 8. In this case, there is nothing to show that charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and the criminal trial against the petitioner has begun. In view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Shri A. C. Baruah (supra), under the facts of this case, as the respondent authorities have no right to withhold the pension of the petitioner, the order bearing No. VIG- 71/2014/365 dated 25.02.2020, issued by the Commissioner (Vigilance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh shall not come in the way for the respondent authorities to release the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner to which he may be found entitled to. 9. However, it is provided that the payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner would be remain subject to any decision that may be taken by the competent authorities under Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021. 10. The competent authority shall take a decision and release the pension to the petitioner within outer period of 2 (two) months from the receipt of the Page No.# 6/6 certified copy of this order. 11. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant