Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:158413-DB
Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14780 of 2024
Petitioner :- Union of India and 4 others
Respondent :- Deo Narain Shukla
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Agarwal
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. This petition is directed against order dated 18.9.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent has been allowed and the competent authority has been directed to release the entire amount of pension, gratuity and leave encashment to the respondent adjusting the amount already paid to him @ simple interest of 6% per annum from the date it became due.
2. Original Application was filed by the respondent inter-alia with the submissions that he had retired on 30.6.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. During the service period, one departmental proceedings was initiated against him based on an FIR, which proceedings were concluded with imposition of punishment for recovery of Rs. 1 Lac as well as reduction in pay by two stages from Rs.6950 to Rs.6650 for two years without cumulative effect.
3. Pursuant to the said imposition of punishment, the amount stood recovered from respondent and reduction of pay was also implemented. However, despite his retiring in the year 2009, he was not paid the post retiral benefits, only provisional pension is being paid and the amount of gratuity, leave encashment and final pension have been withheld by the respondents, which is not justified.
1
4. Response was filed inter-alia indicating that in view of the fact that a criminal case is pending against the respondent, post retiral benefits cannot be granted to him. Based on the departmental Rules governing the subject matter, provisional pension has already been paid and that post retiral benefits would be paid to him when the criminal case pending against him attains finality.
5. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that as the amount of penalty, as imposed during the course of departmental proceedings, had fully been recovered, the action of the respondents withholding the post retiral benefits was arbitrary and pendency of the criminal case cannot be taken into consideration for withholding the post retiral benefits and consequently, granted the relief as noticed hereinbefore.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in granting the relief. Submissions have been made that in terms of the provisions of the Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 read with Rule 9(4) of the said Rules, only payment of provisional pension is permissible and amount of gratuity cannot be paid.
7. Further submission has been made that amount of Leave Encashment, Central Government Employees Group Insurance and Provisional Pension have already been paid to the respondent and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.
8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record.
9. The facts are not in dispute, wherein on account of criminal proceedings initiated against the respondent, simultaneously he
2
was proceeded against departmentally and visited with punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs. 1 Lac and reduction of pay scale by two stages for two years without cumulative effect. During the period of service, the amount of penalty imposed was recovered. However, he was only sanctioned provisional pension and was not paid the amount of gratuity. Reference has been made to provisions of Rules 9 and 69 of the Rules, 1972.
10. In so far as the applicability of Rules 9 and 69 of the Rules, 1972 and the restriction created therein is concerned, the same is not in dispute. However, the issue in the present case is whether the criminal proceedings pending against the respondent, which pertains to the same subject matter for which he has already been proceeded in departmental proceedings and recovery ordered against him to the tune of Rs. 1 Lac already stands recovered, the petitioners are now justified in denying full pension and amount of gratuity to him.
11. The purpose for which provisions of Rules 9 and 69 have been enacted essentially is that, in case, based on the findings of the criminal case, any sum is found recoverable against the employee, the same can be adjusted from the balance amount of pension and gratuity. However, as admittedly, in the present case, recovery to be made from the respondent has already been determined and the amount recovered, only by way of pedantic implementation of provisions of Rules 9 and 69 of the Rules, 1972, the amount due to the respondent cannot be withheld.
12. So far as the submission made about payment having already been made is concerned, the Tribunal has already ordered for adjusting the amount already paid and therefore, there is no question of making double payment under the order passed by the
3
Tribunal.
13. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be faulted.
14. As a result, there is no substance in the petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2024 nd (Vikas Budhwar, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
4