DEO NARAYAN SHUKLA v. M/O COMMUNICATIONS

(ii) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of interest in as much as compound interest at the rate of 18% to the Applicant on the due amount towards his post retiral benefits.

(iii). Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv). Award the cost of the O.A. to the applicant."

3.The compendium of the facts narrated in the instant original application is that the applicant is aggrieved by non-grant of post retiral benefits to him by the respondents and accordingly, he seeks a direction to the respondents to furnish payment of entire post-retiral dues along with interest.

4. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant retired on 30.06.2019 after attaining the age of superannuation. It is also argued that during the service period, one departmental proceeding was initiated on the basis of FIR lodged against the applicant which was concluded vide Annexure No. 1 subsequent to which punishment was imposed upon him for recovery of Rs. 1 lakh as well as reduction of pay of two stages from Rs. 6950/- to Rs. 6650/- in Pay Scale 5000- 8000 for two years without cumulative effect. It is next argued that amount said to be recovered from the applicant has already been recovered and reduction of pay has also been implemented but till date the respondents have not issued any order regarding discharge of post retiral benefits to the applicant. Learned counsel also submits that only provisional pension is being furnished to the applicant and the gratuity amount, leave encashment amount and final pension are withheld by the respondents' department. It is also argued that since departmental proceedings has been concluded thereby giving effect to the punishment imposed upon the applicant, it is not just and

2

proper on the part of the respondents' authorities to withhold the post retiral benefits of the applicant. Mere pendency of a criminal case against the applicant cannot be held as a ground to withhold his post- retiral dues. Thus, referring to the entire documents annexed with the OA, prayer was made to allow the OA thereby directing the competent authority amongst the respondents to release the post retiral benefits in favour of the applicant along with interest prevalent at that time.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer made by the applicant and argues that since a criminal case was pending against the applicant, post retiral benefits could not be granted to him. In accordance with the departmental rules governing the subject matter, only provisional pension has been issued. Learned counsel submits that post retiral benefits shall be paid to the applicant as and when the criminal case pending against the applicant attains finality. It is also argued that there is a provision for withholding all the post retiral benefits of the applicant in case any criminal case is pending against him and thus, argued that the instant original application may be dismissed being devoid of merits.

7. I have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the documents on record.

8. As the facts of the case have already been stated above in detail, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. In this matter as is evident from the record, an FIR was lodged against the applicant. Thereafter, departmental proceedings were initiated against the applicant that was culminated imposing punishment for recovery of Rs. 1 lakh from the applicant as well as a reduction of pay of two stages from Rs. 6950/- to Rs. 6650/- in Pay Scale 5000-8000 for two years without cumulative effect. It is also evident from the record that inquiry was concluded on 06.05.2005. Appeal filed against the inquiry report and order passed by disciplinary authority was also dismissed. Amount directed to be recovered from the applicant's salary has also been recovered. Period of reduction of pay scale has

3

also come to an end. Applicant has retired on 30.06.2009. If such is the position, withholding of post-retiral benefits of the applicant is an arbitrary action of the respondents clearly done on account of misconceived rules and proess. Pendency of a criminal case against the applicant must not have been taken as a reason to withhold his post-retiral benefits particularly when recovery imposed upon the applicant has been made and other punishment imposed upon him has been implemented.

9. Thus, in view of the above quoted deliberations, I am of the considered opinion that the instant original application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed. The competent authority amongst the respondents is hereby directed to release the entire amount of pension, gratuity and leave encashment to the applicant adjusting the amount already paid to him at the rate of simple interest of 6% per annum from the date it becomes due. The respondents must comply with the directions given in the instant judgment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order without fail.

10. All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly.

11. No costs. (Justice Om Prakash VII) Member (Judicial) (Ritu Raj)

4