Post-retirement allegations fail to dent pension: KPTCL employee wins HC battle

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has ordered the payment of full pension to a Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) employee who is accused in a corruption case.

The KPTCL had withheld half of his pension due to the case. The High Court which heard his petition said that though the case was initiated before the employee’s retirement, the cognizance was taken by the trial court only after his retirement; therefore he was entitled for full pension.

The bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil said, “In the present case, the cognizance was taken on 6.8.2022 after he had retired from service on 31.05.2022. Though proceedings were instituted before the ACB even prior to the petitioner having retired, cognizance was taken subsequently.”

Citing the Prevention of Corruption Act, the HC pointed out that “In terms of Regulation 172, the reference to judicial proceedings and its pendency would take us to the explanation and as regards criminal proceedings, the same can be deemed to be instituted, is only on the date when the cognizance is taken.”

The appeal filed by KPTCL was heard by the division bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil.

The Corporation had withheld the pension and all retirement benefits of the employee; Mallikarjun Savanur. He had challenged it before a singlejudge bench which had allowed his petition and directed the Corporation to disburse all retirement benefits.

This was challenged in the appeal by the division bench. A case filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against Mallikarjun is pending before a special court.

However, the HC pointed out that “It is relevant to note that the endorsement withholding the pension came to be passed on 28.6.2022. As cognizance was taken only on 6.8.2022 in terms of the explanation to Regulation 172, as on the date of endorsement, there was no judicial proceeding that was pending.”

Rejecting the appeal by the Corporation, the HC said, “However, we clarify that the present case relates to withholding of pension in terms of Regulation 172 and leave open all rights of the employer under the Regulations as are available upon conclusion of the judicial proceedings. Accordingly, we find that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge does not call for interference and accordingly, Writ Appeal stands rejected.” (WA 100422/2023)

LEAVE A COMMENT