Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Rama Pati Chaubey vs Union Of India on 17 May, 2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW Original Application No. 332/00473/2019 This, the 17th day of May, 2023 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-J Rama Pati Chaubey, aged about 63 years, son of late Ayodhya Chaubey, Resident of 643M/159, Nayak Nagar, Sitapur Road, Lucknow .....APPLICANTS By Advocate: Sri R P Maurya.
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA, through its Secretary Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. Narcotics Commissioner of India, Central Bureau of Narcotics, 19 Mall Morar, Gwalior, M.P.
3. Assistant Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics, 19 Mall Morar, Gwalior, M.P.
4. Deputy Narcotics Commissioner, B-40 Mandir Marg, Mahanagar, Lucknow.
............ 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 the following relief(s):
(a) To issue necessary and appropriate order or direction commanding the respondent no. 2 to 4 to release / pay the amount of gratuity and other post retirement dues including full pension along with the arrears and interest to the applicant without any further delay after verifying the pay scale as per 7th pay commission.
(b) To issue appropriate order or direction directing the respondent no. 2 to 4 to refix the salary of the applicant after adding 2 increment for the year 2014 and 2015, bonus, difference of salary for the period of suspension and revise the pension accordingly.
(c) Award the cost of original application to the applicant.
3. Tersely put, the case of the applicant is that applicant was appointed in the service of Union of India, department of Narcotics on the post of Sipahi on 29.07.1976 after completion of more than 30 years continuous service, he was promoted as LDC in January, 2011.
Page 1 of 64. Applicant was falsely implicated in a false criminal case under Section 420 IPC. He was sent to Jail and was placed under deemed suspension vide order dated 18.12.2013. Applicant superannuated on 31.10.2016. On the pretext that on implication of the applicant in a criminal case, increment, pension and gratuity has not been paid to him. Only provisional pension is being paid.
5. The criminal case has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court. Accordingly, respondents have no right to withhold the amounts of gratuity on the ground of being accused in a criminal case.
Hence, this O.A.
6. Respondents by filing counter affidavit have, inter-alia, stated that applicant was implicated in a criminal and charge were imposed upon him under Section 409/ 420/ 467/ 468//471/504/506/ 120-B of IPC. Applicant was arrested on 19.11.2013 and was sent to jail. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 18.12.2013 and period of suspension was extended from time to time till 10.04.2015. Applicant retired on 31.10.2016. Only provisional pension has been given to the applicant and other post retiral benefits such as gratuity, computation of pension arrears etc. have not been paid to him and difference of salary from the period of suspension has also not been given because criminal case was still pending. It has been admitted that no departmental proceedings have been instituted against the applicant but criminal proceedings in the case No. 9008/B/2013- Arun Kumar Chaturvedi vs. State of UP is still pending against the applicant before the competent court. As per pension Rule 69(c) CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, no gratuity shall be paid till the final outcome of the proceeding pending against the applicant. O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant filed rejoinder affidavit stating therein that there is no evidence against the applicant and implication of applicant in the criminal case is baseless. Withholding of the gratuity would violate Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Entire proceedings of the criminal case have been stayed by Hon'ble High Court under Section- 482 Cr.P.C. Respondents cannot withhold gratuity on the basis of merely pending of a criminal case.
Page 2 of 68. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that respondents cannot legally withhold the amounts of gratuity and other post retiral benefits merely on the ground of implication of the applicant in a criminal case. There is no evidence against the applicant. Proceedings in criminal case have been stayed by Hon'ble High Court.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents countered the aforesaid submissions and argued that gratuity or other retiral dues of the applicant has been withheld as per rules made by Central Government. Rule 69(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, provides that no gratuity shall be paid till the final outcome of the proceedings pending against the applicant.
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.
(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 Page 3 of 6 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 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.
Page 4 of 6In 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 appointed in service of Union of India in the year 1976. A criminal case was lodged against applicant under Section 420 IPC. He was arrested on 19.11.2013 and was remanded to judicial custody. Case is still pending, however, Hon'ble High Court in proceedings under Section 482-Cr.P.C. has stayed the proceedings of the criminal case.
14. Staying of the criminal proceedings will not amount to conclusion of the judicial proceedings and issue of final order 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 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 and respondents cannot be directed to re-fix the salary of the applicant and give him two increment for the year 2014 and 2015 and payment of bonus, difference of salary for the period of suspension and revision of pension.
15. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow Bench in the matter of Writ Petition No. 19240 of 2016- Union of India and Others vs. Raj Kishore Pandey and another decided on 23.04.2018 and submitted that OA should be allowed.
Page 5 of 616. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant as judgment referred by learned counsel for the applicant has been discussed by Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Petition No. A- 2248 of 2021- UOI Thru. Secy. Communication Ministry of Deptt. Of Posts and Ors. v. Mithai Ram and Anr..
17. In view of above, the OA lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
18. No costs.
19. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (J) JNS Page 6 of 6