Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Kripal Singh vs Union Of India on 5 January, 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW Original Application No. 332/00323/2017 This, the 05th day of January, 2024 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-J Kripal Singh aged about 63 years, son of Late Shri Jangli Prasad, resident of Village- Siswara, Post- Nasir Nagar, P.S.- Masauli, District- Barabanki.
.....APPLICANT By Advocate: Sri Himanshu Vais holding brief for Sri Sunder Lal.
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA, through its Secretary, Ministry of Information and Technology, Department of Posts, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, Uttar Pradesh Circle, Lucknow.
3. Director of Accounts (Postal), Pension Division, U.P. Circle, Aliganj, Lucknow.
4. Superintendent of Posts Offices, Barabanki Division, Barabanki.
............ Respondents
Advocate: Ms. Prayagmati Gupta.
O R D E R [ORAL]
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
2. Applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
(a) to direct the opp. parties to make the payment of the gratuity of the petitioner which has illegally, arbitrarily withhold by the opp. parties.
(b) to quash the impugned order dated 02-05-2017 passed by the opp.
party no. 4 in reply to the application / representations dated 18-4- 2017 whereby he has refused to payment of his gratuity amount.
(c) any other order which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper in the circumstances of the cases be also passed.
(d) to pay the cost of this application."
3. Tersely put, the case of the applicant is that applicant was appointed in the Respondent Department in the year 1976. He was falsely named in the F.I.R. having case crime no. 75/85 u/s 396 at P.S.- Masauli Page 1 of 6 District- Barabanki. Applicant was convicted in the aforesaid case alongwith other co-accused. Applicant was dismissed from service by the respondent no. 4 on account of aforesaid conviction. Further averment of the applicant is that applicant filed an appeal against the said conviction judgment and order dated 08.01.1987 and the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to stay the operation of the aforesaid conviction.
Consequent thereupon, the applicant was reinstated in the service by the respondent no. 4. Applicant was granted provisional pension by the respondents. Applicant tried his best for getting gratuity amount but respondents informed that gratuity cannot be paid owing to pendency of criminal case.
It has been stated that applicant never faced any departmental proceedings nor was punished by the authority for his work and conduct in his entire service period. Withholding the gratuity amount by the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.
Hence, this O.A.
4. Respondents by filing their counter affidavit have, inter-alia, stated that applicant was implicated in a criminal case u/s 396 I.P.C. Applicant was convicted by competent court. Against conviction order, applicant has preferred a criminal appeal no. 50/1987 before Hon'ble High Court where the operation of the conviction order has been suspended but the said criminal appeal is still pending. Further alleged that as per Rule-69(1)(C) of CCS Pension Rule -1972 no gratuity shall be paid to the Govt. Servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final order thereon. O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant filed rejoinder affidavit stating therein that neither the disciplinary proceedings were pending nor there has any due on the part of the applicant and also the respondents had not suffered any loss by the conduct of the applicant, as such Respondents have no reason to withhold the gratuity merely on the basis pendency of judicial proceedings.
6. Applicant submitted written submissions also.
7. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no departmental proceedings were ever initiated against the applicant during entire service. The conviction and sentence passed by Special Judge, Barabanki has been suspended by Hon'ble High Court, moreover, said Page 2 of 6 offence is not in any way related with the service condition of the applicant nor can be said to be corrupt practice.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the aforesaid submissions and argued that in the similar fact situations, the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad at Lucknow Bench in Writ - A No. 2248 of 2021 [U.O.I. Thru Secy. Communication Ministry Deptt. Of Posts And Ors. vs. Mithai Ram And Anr.] has held that gratuity to a government servant cannot be paid until conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings and until final orders are issued thereon.
Learned counsel for the respondents referred judgment of this Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 473/2019 [ Rama Pati Chaubey v. UoI & Ors.] wherein on the basis of aforecited judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, OA has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that OA has no legs stand and is liable to be dismissed.
10. In Writ Petition No. A- 2248 of 2021- UOI Thru. Secy. Communication Ministry of Deptt. Of Posts and Ors. v. Mithai Ram and Anr., the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow Bench has held that in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 69 (1) (c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, on account of criminal case, a government servant is not entitled to be paid the amount of gratuity till the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon.
11. Relevant portion of the aforesaid Writ Petition No. A- 2248 of 2021- UOI Thru. Secy. Communication Ministry of Deptt. Of Posts and Ors. v. Mithai Ram and Anr. are reproduced herein below:
"......Rule 69 of the -Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is quoted hereunder:-
"69. Provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceedings may be pending (1) (a) In respect of a Government servant referred to in subrule (4) of Rule 9, the Accounts Officer shall authorize the provisional pension equal to the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service up to date of retirement of the Government Servant, or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement up to the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension.Page 3 of 6
(b) The provisional pension shall be authorized by the Accounts Officer during the period commencing from the date of retirement up to and including the date on which, after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings, final orders are passed by the Competent Authority.
(c) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon.
Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 for imposing any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i) (ii) and (iv) of Rule 11 of the said Rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorized to be paid to the government servant.
(2) Payment of provisional pension made under sub-rule (1) shall be adjusted against final retirement benefits sanctioned to such Government servant upon conclusion of such proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period."
In terms of the provisions of Rule 69 91) (c), as quoted above, there is mandatory prohibition about payment of gratuity to a government servant who has retired until conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings and until final orders are issued thereon.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the criminal case no.66/06 and 66/07, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 262 and 263 IPC is pending trial. Thus, during the course of pendency of said criminal trial, in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 69 (1) (c) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the claimant-respondent no.1 is not entitled to be paid the amount of gratuity till conclusion of the judicial proceedings and issuance of final orders thereon. Our view is supported by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 23.04.2018 in Writ Petition No.19240 (SB) of 2016; Union of India and others Page 4 of 6 vs. Raj Kishore Pandey and another. The said judgment in the case of Raj Kishore Pandey and another (supra) is based on the provisions of Rule 69 (1) (c) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the clear opinion that the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal which is under challenge herein is not sustainable.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the judgment and order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.362 of 2016 is hereby setaside and the Original Application itself is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed on the Review Petition No. 01 of 2020 filed by the petitioners herein by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 16.01.2020 is also hereby set- aside.
However, there will be no order as to costs.."
12. Thus, law on this point is that gratuity shall not be paid to a Government servant until conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issuance of final orders thereon.
13. Applying of the aforesaid law to the present case, it is admitted fact that applicant was employee of the respondent department who retired on 31.01.2015. While in service, applicant became accused in case crime No. 75/85 u/s 396 I.P.C. at P.S.-Masauli, District- Barabanki. Applicant faced trail in Criminal case No. 75/85 and was convicted by the Special Judge, Barabanki vide order dated 08.01.1987. Applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 50/1987 against the aforesaid conviction before Hon'ble High Court and operation of the conviction order dated 08.01.1987 passed in criminal case no. ST 67/87 crime no. 75/85, u/s 396 I.P.C. was suspended by Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, applicant was reinstated in service. Applicant retired from service during pendency of the aforesaid criminal case.
14. Suspension of the operation of conviction judgment /order passed by Special Judge in criminal proceedings will not amount to conclusion of the judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No. A- 2248 of 2021- UOI Thru. Secy. Communication Ministry of Deptt. Of Page 5 of 6 Posts and Ors. v. Mithai Ram and Anr., and Rule 69 (1) (c) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, applicant is not entitled for gratuity as criminal case is pending till today against him
15. This Tribunal in similar fact situations in O.A. No. 473/2019 [ Rama Pati Chaubey v. UoI & Ors.] has dismissed the OA, hence, there is no reason to take different view in the present matter.
16. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant are baseless and are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
17. In view of above, the OA lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
No costs.
Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (J) JNS Page 6 of 6