Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ajay Shankar Ojha vs North Eastern Railway on 2 January, 2025
(OPEN COURT)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
This is the 02nd day of January, 2025.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 330/00879 of 2024
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER (J)
Ajay Shankar Ojha, aged about 63 years, son of late Chandra
Shekhar Ojha, resident of HIG-C/41, Siddharth Enclave Tara
Mandal, Gorakhpur.
...Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Chief Workshop Manager (Bridge), North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
3. Senior Personnel Officer (Bridge), North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
4. F.A. & CAO North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra
ORDER
By means of present O.A., the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
"(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the payment of DCRG to the applicant who has been retired long time back w.e.f. 31.03.2020 and he may allowed the further consequential benefits including the 12 percent interest on delay payment.2
(ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may be given in favour of the applicant.
(iii) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant".
2. The brief facts of the case are that applicant was retired from service on 31.03.2020. Respondents issued PPO however for payment of gratuity a remark was made that it is withheld due to pendency of case under section 03 of RPUP Act. Applicant submitted a representation dated 21.05.2020 before the respondent No. 4. He again submitted representation on 23.10.2020 stating therein that his name does not find place in the aforesaid case. He also submitted that the matter pertains to the year 1995, however, till date no decision could be taken. Applicant submitted several representations for release of gratuity. When request of the applicant was not considered, he filed present OA.
3. I have heard Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
4. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that although criminal case is said to be pending against the applicant started in the year 1995 but till date said criminal case has not been decided. It was next argued that similarly situated person namely Chhote Lal, Ravindra Kumar Pandey and Ajeet Kumar have approached before this Tribunal when gratuity amount on their retirement was not released in their favour, Tribunal after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case allowed the OA and directed the respondents to release the gratuity amount. It was further argued that applicant case is also identical and is relating to the same incident, thus, OA be allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 22.12.2021 passed in OA No. 330/01220/2017 - Ravindra Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India and others and judgment and order dated 21.08.2024 passed in OA No. 3 1097 of 2022 - Chhote Lal Vs. Union of India and others. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the documents annexed with the OA as well as counter affidavit.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to para 3 of the counter affidavit as well as Annexure Nos. CR-1, CR-3 and CR-4 argued that a criminal case for the offence under section 109, 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447A IPC is pending against the applicant. Respondents can withhold the gratuity if a criminal case is pending against him. It is also argued that applicant's case is distinguishable with the case of Chhote Lal as well as Ravindra Kumar Pandey. No benefit with the judgment rendered in aforesaid matter by the Tribunal can be extended to the present applicant. Thus, referring to the documents annexed with the counter affidavit and facts disclosed in the counter affidavit, prayer was made to dismiss the OA.
6. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the entire record.
7. Before discussing the submission raised across the bar it will be useful to quote the order passed in the OA No. 1220/2017 on dated 22.12.2021.
"Open Court Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the 22nd day of December, 2021.
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) Original Application No. 330/01220/2017 Ravindra Kumar Pandey, Son of Mahendra Kumar Pandey, Resident of 229- D, Betia Hata, Sheopuri Colony, Gorakhpur.
........... APPLICANT 4 By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava.
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Chief Bridge Engineer, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
3. Senior Personnel Officer (Bridge), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
..........RESPONDENTS.
By Advocate: Shri L.M. Singh.
ORDER Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.
2. The applicant is aggrieved that subsequent to him retirement, the respondents have not released his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG). To this effect, he seeks the following relief:
" (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.6.2017 passed by respondents No. 3 (Annexure No. A-1 to the Compilation No. I of this Original Application), the respondents no. 3 may be directed to release the payment of DCRG to the applicant alongwith the admissible interest thereupon.
(ii) To issue any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(iii) To award the cost of the application to the applicant."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had submitted a Representation to the Competent Authority who, vide the impugned order dated 16.06.2017, has informed that in accordance with Rule 10 of the Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993, no DCRG can be paid to an employee against whom a departmental or judicial proceedings is pending.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, submits that the respondents cannot take shelter behind this Rule to penalize the applicant for an incident which took place in the year 1995. He further draws attention to the FIR which was lodged in the year 1995 in which seven persons have been made accused and submits that the applicant was merely a Mistri hence, very low 5 down in the administrative hierarchy. The learned counsel goes on to argue that in case there was any criminal activity or offence, surely the responsibility and liability of the same is of the person who was in charge of the stores wherein embezzlement is alleged to have taken place. By no stretch of imagination, he goes on to argue, can a Mistri be placed on the same footing in terms of criminal liability as the person who was the custodian and incharge of public property.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents rebuts the argument and mentions that the rule position is absolutely clear and does not allow any scope for discretion. For the sake of clarity, the relevant Rule which is Rule 10 (1) (c) of the Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993, is quoted below:
" (c) No gratuity shall be paid to the railway servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of 3 final orders thereon; provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under the provisions of the Railway Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968, for imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii), (iii a) and (iv) of rule 6 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorised to be paid to the railway servant."
6. No doubt, the Rule is categorical and uses the word 'shall' but the rules is also extremely obscure as it mentions that the gratuity shall not be paid till the conclusion of 'judicial proceedings'. The Rule nowhere clarifies what is the intended meaning of 'judicial proceedings' because the term 'judicial proceedings' itself covers the entire gamut of litigation and it could on occasions be misinterpreted to unreasonably deny an employee of his gratuity.
7. He also points out that nowhere in either in the O.A. or the arguments has the Rule 10 of the Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993 been challenged by the applicant or his counsel. Although, his contention is correct, I may point out that during the course of the hearing, this observation has been made by the Court and not by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. Learned counsel also points out that the other accused who are similarly situated have also been denied the payment of gratuity and hence the applicant cannot allege any discriminatory treatment.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the records.
10. No doubt, the applicant has a strong support and shelter of the Rule 10 of the Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993 quoted above but I cannot 6 ignore the fact that the intention of this Rule could not have been to give unbridled powers to the authorities to deny the bona fide due of gratuity to the employees. The intention behind non-payment of gratuity to an employee who is involved in criminal or departmental proceedings is to protect public funds and government money which is said to have been embezzled. No doubt, in the instant case, the FIR discloses embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs but this FIR was lodged as far back as the year 1995 and 26 years down the line, it is yet to attain its logical conclusion. A low placed employee who has since retired four years back cannot be made to suffer the consequences of such a measure during his entire life period. Therefore, one needs to take a more flexible and pragmatic view of the matter. Moreover, release of the DCRG can by no stretch of imagination have any impact on the outcome of the criminal / judicial proceedings in progress against the applicant.
11. Accordingly, I allow this O.A. and quash the impugned order with a direction to the respondents to release the Death-cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) of the applicant forthwith, in any case not later than a period of 12 weeks from the date of this order.
12. All the pending M.A.s are disposed of accordingly.
13. There shall be no orders as to costs".
8. Similar order has also been passed by the Tribunal in the matter of Chhote Lal in OA NO. 1097 of 2022 on dated 21.08.2024, which is quoted as below:-
"(Reserved on 19.07.2024) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD.
Pronounced on the 21st day of August, 2024 Original Application No. 1097/2022 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member(Judicial) Chhote Lal, Aged about 65 years, Son of Late Nanku, Resident of House No. 11-P, Tharo Line, Neena Thapa, Jhasna Tola, Kunra Ghat, Gorakhpur.
. . .Applicant By Advocate : Shri Ashish Srivastava 7 VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Chief Workshop Manager (Bridge), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
3. Senior Personnel Officer (Bridge), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
. . .Respondents By Advocate : Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma ORDER Heard Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing of case.
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 08.12.2016. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to release the payment of Death - cum-Retiral Gratuity (hereinafter referred as 'DCRG') to the applicant, who has been retired long time back w.e.f. 31.10.2016 with all consequential benefits including the interest.
3. The facts leading to this Original Application as apparent from the record as under:-
a) The applicant was appointed as Bridge Inspector Grade-III under the respondent-3, Senior Personnel Officer (Bridge), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. Thereafter, the said post was re-designated as Senior Section Inspector and he was promoted as Senior Section Inspector Grade-II.
b) An FIR was lodged on 14.07.1995 against Shri Nimbu Lal and Ram Bilas in the Shahpur Police Station, Gorakhpur, by Amal Rai, Executive Engineer (Bridge) as there were various articles missing from the store.
c) Having aggrieved with the FIR, Shri Ram Bilas made a complaint before the DIG, Railway Protection Force for his harassment being a candidate of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Community and as 8 such, the DIG, Railway Protection Force has ordered that to prepare a fresh inventory.
d) Consequently a complaint was submitted before the Railway Magistrate and a sanction as also granted to lodge a cross FIR against the officers of the Bridge Department including the staff associating in preparation of the inventory including the applicant.
e) The aforesaid matter is pending since last 26 years; however, till date no cognizance has taken for disposal of the case. Since the applicant is going to superannuate on 31.10.2016, he represented before the respondent-2 on 26.10.2016, claiming his retiral benefits.
In reply to that, the respondents issued a letter dated 08.12.2016 to the applicant mentioning that he shall not be entitled for payment of post retiral benefits including Death cum retiral gratuity (hereinafter referred as DCRG) till pendency the judicial/criminal proceeding against him.
f) Hence, the applicant has constrained to knock the door of this Tribunal, challenging the order dated 08.12.2016. 4. On the other hand, no counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents though the several opportunities were granted to them.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that pendency of judicial proceeding/criminal proceeding cannot be a ground to detain the release of gratuity /pensionary benefits of the government employee particularly when it is pending since long time i.e. 26 years and also as per the provision of the Gratuity Act, 1972, there is a bar for payment of gratuity to the employee whose service has been terminated for an act of negligence or damage to the property belonging to the employer. The applicant has no concern with the store work and as such, no liability can be fixed against him. The present criminal case relates to two individuals and the department/RPF cannot in any manner fixed liability of any loss on the applicant. In fact, there is no case set up against the applicant in the inquiry report dated 15.12.1999.
6. It is further submitted that the name of the applicant was not in FIR filed in the year 1997 and later on, the Inspector, Railway Protection Force has mentioned his name in its report dated 15.12.1999, but there was no mention of any role of the applicant, contributing in the aforesaid loss caused to the store.
7. Further, it is also submitted that the articles which were alleged to be missing from the store were subsequently found present in the premises of the department, thus there was noting remained missing and therefore, there was no loss to the railway administration.
98. It is further submitted that in the same matter, one Shri Ravindra Kumar Pandey, who was also associated for purposes of the formation of inventory and he was also named in the FIR and as a result the post retiral benefits including DCRG of Ravindra Kumar Pandey was also withheld. He approached this Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 1220/2017, which was allowed vide order dated 22.11.2021 by directing the respondents to release the Death cum Retiral Gratuity (DCRG) of applicant forthwith in any case not later than a period of twelve weeks from the date of this order. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant requested to quash the impugned order dated 08.12.2016 and to direct the respondents to release the DCRG by allowing this Original Application.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that rule position is absolutely clear and does not allow any scope for discretion. For the sake of clarity, the relevant Rule which is Rule 10 (1) (c) of the Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993, is quoted below:
".... (c) No gratuity shall be paid to the railway servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of 3 final orders thereon; provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under the provisions of the Railway Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968, for imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii), (iii a) and (iv) of rule 6 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorised to be paid to the railway servant."
10. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that nowhere in the Original Application Rule 10 of the Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993 been challenged by the applicant. However, he admits that this Tribunal has already decided the case of one similarly situated person namely Ravindra Kumar Pandey (O.A. No.1220/2017) regarding DCRG only vide order dated 22.11.2021.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and considered the submissions so raised by them and perused the records.
12. From the records, it appears that, no doubt, the applicant has a strong support and shelter of the Rule 10 of the Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993 quoted above but I cannot ignore the fact that the intention of this Rule could not have been to give unbridled powers to the authorities to deny the bona fide due of gratuity to the employees. The intention behind non- payment of gratuity to an employee, who is involved in criminal or departmental proceedings is to protect public funds and government money 10 which is said to have been embezzled. No doubt, in the instant case, the FIR discloses embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs but this FIR was lodged as far back as the year 1997 and 26 years down the line, it is yet to attain its logical conclusion. An employee who has since retired eight years back cannot be made to suffer the consequences of such a measure during his entire life period. Therefore, one needs to take a more flexible and pragmatic view of the matter. Moreover, release of the DCRG can by no stretch of imagination have any impact on the outcome of the criminal / judicial proceedings in progress against the applicant.
13. The solitary ground upon which the gratuity of the petitioner has been withheld is the pendency of the judicial proceeding/ criminal case. In order to ascertain the veracity as well as the justification for withholding the gratuity of the petitioner only on the ground of pendency of the criminal case, it will be necessary to examine the issue in light of the Full Bench decision of the Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas; 1993 (4) SCC 351 wherein the Apex Court held as under considering the case of Shiv Gopal (supra):-
"31. On plain reading, Article 351 confers power upon the State Government of withholding or withdrawing pension or any part of it, if the pensioner be convicted of serious crime‟ or be guilty of grave misconduct. In other words the State Government can withhold or withdraw pension on two grounds: (i) convicted of serious crime; (ii) guilty of grave misconduct; but not otherwise. In other words mere pendency of criminal case or disciplinary proceedings is not sufficient to withhold/or withdraw pension under Article 351.
**** *** ****
39. The expression „serious crime‟ has to be understood in the context of service jurisprudence involving the government servant. It may be any act of ommission which in the opinion of the competent authority is serious enough and calls for punitive action in terms of Article 351. It has no bearing with the quantum of sentence but with the nature of the offence and the degree of involvement of the government servant in the commission/omission of the crime.
40. Article 351-A empowers the Governor to withhold or withdraw pension or a part of it permanently or for specified period and order recovery from pension for pecuniary loss caused to the Government if the pensioner in departmental proceedings or in judicial proceedings, has been found: (i) guilty of grave misconduct or (ii) to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or 11 negligence during his service. The proviso to the Article spells out the circumstances/conditions in which the departmental proceedings/judicial proceedings is required to be instituted for the purposes of withholding/withdrawing pension. Article 351-A reads thus: "351-A21. The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re- employment after retirement: Provided that-
(a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during reemployment-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor.
(ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding; and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place or places as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made.
(b) Judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a); and
(c) the Public Service Commission, U.P. shall be consulted before final orders are passed. [Provided further that of the order passed by the Governor relates to a cash dealt with under the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings, (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947, it shall not be necessary to consult Public Service Commission].
Explanation-For the purposes of this article-
(a) Departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him or, if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date ; and
(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted:
12(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which complaint is made, or a charge-sheet is submitted, to a criminal court ; and
(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on which the plaint is presented or, as the case may be, an application is made to Civil court Note- As soon as proceedings of the nature referred to in this article are instituted the authority which institutes such proceedings shall without delay intimate the fact to the Audit Officer concerned."
41. Explanation to Article 351-A clarifies that departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted: (i) when charges are framed against the pensioner; or (ii) the officer has been placed under suspension from such date. Further, judicial proceedings is deemed to have been instituted against the pensioner:
(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on date on which complaint is made or charge-sheet is submitted to a criminal court; (ii) in case of civil proceedings on the date on which plaint is presented or as the case may be, an application is made to Civil Court.
42. Now we will refer to the proviso to Article 351-A. The proviso speaks about initiation of disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings against the government servant after retirement. For initiating proceedings the conditions specified therein must be satisfied, that is, departmental proceedings as indicated in proviso (a) if not instituted while the officer was on duty then it shall not be instituted except:
(i). with the sanction of the Governor;
(ii). it shall be initiated on an event which took place not more than 4 years before the institution of the proceedings;
(iii). such proceedings would be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made.
***** **** **** ****
48. On joint reading of Article 351 and 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations clearly indicates that the State Government/Governor reserves to itself the power and right to withhold or withdraw pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for specified period or to order recovery from pension of the whole or part of any 13 pecuniary loss caused to the government in the following eventualities:-
i. pensioner be convicted of serious crime;
ii. pensioner be guilty of grave misconduct;
iii. pensioner having caused pecuniary loss to the government by misconduct or negligence, during service including service rendered on reemployment after retirement;
iv. The power under Article 351 and 351-A can be invoked by the Governor/State Government upon conclusion of disciplinary/judicial proceedings and not at the inception of the proceedings. In other words, the condition precedent for exercise of power under these Articles is on conclusion of the proceedings and order being passed thereon by the competent authority.
Article 351-AA/Article 919-A:
49. Article 351-AA came to be incorporated entitling provisional pension as against full pension (commutation of pension) to government servant against whom departmental or judicial proceedings or any enquiry by Administrative Tribunal is pending on the date of retirement or is to be instituted after Page retirement, such government servant may be sanctioned provisional pension as provided in Article 919-A.
50. Article 351-AA reads thus: "[351-AA25. In the case of a Government Servant who retires on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings or any enquiry by Administrative Tribunal is pending on the date of retirement or is to be instituted after retirement a provisional pension as provided in Article 919-A may be sanctioned."
51. On plain reading of Article 351-AA, it transpires that in the eventuality of proceedings/enquiry, referred therein, is pending against a government servant on the date of superannuation, the government servant shall be entitled to provisional pension. In other words, pendency of departmental/judicial proceedings or any enquiry or enquiry to be instituted after retirement would not empower the State Government to withhold pension, but the government servant may be sanctioned provisional pension, computed as per Rules. It follows that the full pension has to be 14 computed on conclusion of the proceedings/enquiry as the case may be."
14. From the perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, it would be relevant to note that in order for the Authorities to withhold the gratuity of the applicant, it would be imperative to record that the pensioner would be guilty or is under trial for a serious crime. It will be necessary for the Authorities to apply its mind to see whether the nature of the crime in which the pensioner is involved comes within the ambit of the serious crime or not. While entering into the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the Competent Authority must also bear in the mind whether the complaint or charge sheet against the applicant was filed during the service period and if the allegations in the charge sheet against the applicant falls within the ambit of a serious offence which is unbecoming of a government servant, then how and in what contingency, the pensioner was allowed to continue in employment even though the Department knew of the pendency of the criminal case against the pensioner and whether in such circumstances, it would be appropriate to withhold the gratuity of the applicant on the ground of the pendency of the criminal case.
15. If the facts of the instant case are seen, it would be noticed that the criminal case was registered in the year, 1995 against the applicant and he superannuated on 31.10.2016. It is not the case of the respondents that the Department was not aware of the said criminal case pending against the applicant and the matter is still engaging the attention of the Court concerned. Whether any reasonable case is made out is for the Court concerned to look into the criminal matter but at the same time, after more than 26 years of the institution of the said case and where the applicant has superannuated on 31.10.2016, it had to be considered objectively by the Authorities as to whether there is reasonable material to arrive at a finding that the applicant is somewhat involved in a serious crime. In case if it was so then under what circumstances, the applicant was allowed to continue in service, but unfortunately this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Authority concerned.
16. Further, the case of one similarly situated person has already been decided vide order dated 22.11.2021 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.1220/2017 and as such, the applicant is also entitled for the similar relief as has been given to applicant of O.A. No.1220/2017.
17. In view of the above discussion, impugned order dated 08.12.2016 is liable to be quashed and as such, same is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the competent Authority amongst the respondents is directed to release the Death-cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) of the applicant forthwith, in any 15 case not later than a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
18. Resultantly, instant Original Application stands allowed.
19. All the pending M.A.s are disposed of accordingly.
20. There shall be no order as to costs".
9. From the scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the present case with the facts and circumstances of the OA No. 1097 of 2022 as well as OA No. 1220/2017, it emerges that both OAs were allowed in identical situation and applicant of both the OAs were granted similar reliefs as are claimed in the present OA. There is no distinguishable feature and facts to deny the applicant with the benefit of judgment rendered in the aforesaid OAs. Thus, in view of the above, OA is liable to be allowed and present OA is also liable to be decided in terms of decision given in OA No. 1097 of 2022 as well as OA No. 1220/2017.
10. Accordingly, O.A. is allowed in terms of decision given in OA No. 1097 of 2022 as well as OA No. 1220/2017. Competent Authority amongst the respondents is directed to release the death cum retirement gratuity to the applicant. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 04 months from the date of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.
(Justice Om Prakash VII) Member (J) Manish/-