Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
G Balakishan vs Defence Research And Development ... on 26 September, 2025
1
OA.No.538/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.020/00538/2024
ORDER RESERVED ON 04.09.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 26.09.2025
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Mr. G. Balakishan
S/o Vithal, Age about: 61 years
Scientist -'G' (Retd)
Research Centre Imarat (RCI)
Chandrayanagutta
Ministry of Defence, Hyderabad.
R/o: H.No. 4-158, Plot No.94
Charvitha Meadows
Burugupalle, Siddipet - 502107. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sri K.Sudhaker Reddy)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep by its Dy Director (Pers/DRDS-II)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
Defence Res & Dev Orgn
Directorate of Personnel
231 A Block, DRDO Bhawan
New Delhi- 110 011.
2. The Director
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
Research Centre Imarat (RCI)
Chandrayanagutta
Hyderabad. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Smt. K.Rajitha, Sr. PC for CG)
*******
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLAPDN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=
NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD,
Phone=
ALLI
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa
0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f418
13a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=
PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.09.26 16:00:46+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.538/2024
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
i. Set aside the impugned order Lr.No.DOP/07/73100/M/01 /DRDS-II, dated: 22 May 2024 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violation of the applicant's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 an 16 of the Constitution of India and against the law laid down by the above judicial pronouncements, and ii. Consequently direct the respondents 1 & 2 herein to release the Gratuity and Full Pension and Commutation of Pension Etc. of the applicant with interest and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
i. The applicant had joined as Scientist-C, in the office of the Director, Research Centre Imarat (RCI), Ministry of Defence, Hyderabad/ Respondent No.2. Subsequently, he was promoted as Scientist-G and retired from service on 30.04.2023 on attaining the age of superannuation.
ii. It is contended that though the applicant is entitled to release of all the retirement benefits, such as Pension, Gratuity, Commutation of Pension, etc., on superannuation, till date, he is being paid only the provisional pension and even commutation has not been allowed by the 2nd Respondent. The applicant had approached the 2nd Respondent and requested for release of all Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAPDN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa 0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f418 13a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.26 16:00:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA.No.538/2024 the retirement benefits, including Gratuity, but the same is not released yet.
iii. It is further submitted that, when the applicant approached the 2nd Respondent, i.e., the Director, RCI, Hyderabad, he addressed letter No.RCI/ADM/014/PENS/01-2023/116, dt.06.07.2023, to the 1st Respondent/ Dy.Director (Pers/DRDS-II), DRDO, and, in response to the above letter, the 1st Respondent, vide their Lr.No.DOP/07/73100/M/01//DRDS-II, dt.13.07.2023, addressed the 2nd Respondent, directing him to grant provisional pension to the applicant, in terms of Rule 63(5) (a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.
iv. Rule 63(5) (a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, reads as follows:
"63 (5) (a): In case, any departmental or judicial proceedings are pending against the Government servant, a provisional pension as provided in sub-
rule (5) of rule 8 shall be authorised by the Accounts Officer and no gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon and after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon, the Head of Office shall forward the copy of final orders passed by the competent authority along with the details in Form 7-A, not later than thirty days from the date of issue of the said orders."
v. According to the applicant, no disciplinary case is pending against him in relation to any irregularities committed while discharging duties in the department. Some cases in regard to family disputes, such as Divorce and Maintenance and a case under the Domestic Violence Act are filed by his wife which are pending against the applicant. The impugned order, withholding gratuity and not granting full pension to the applicant on the ground of pendency of criminal case is not sustainable for the Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAPDN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa 0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f418 13a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.26 16:00:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.538/2024 reason that gratuity, as well as normal/full pension, can be withheld only when an employee is guilty of grave misconduct or convicted of any 'serious offence'. Only if the criminal charge levelled against the applicant falls within the ambit of 'serious crime', the authority can withhold the retirement benefits. The impugned order does not reflect any application of mind by the authority or any finding of the authority recording prima facie satisfaction that the charges levelled against the petitioner fall within the ambit of 'serious crime'.
vi. The State Government can withhold or withdraw pension on two grounds: (i) convicted of serious crime; (ii) guilty of grave misconduct; but not otherwise. Mere pendency of criminal case or disciplinary proceedings is not sufficient to withhold / or withdraw pension, as per Article 351.
vii. The Applicant has relied upon the following judgments -
a. The State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, in Claim Petition No.465/2021, in the case of Rajjan Lal vs. State of UP & others, wherein it is held as follows -
14. I have duly considered the case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner of the employer. In the case of Radhey Shyam Shukla (Supra), the Hon'ble High Court discussed the case of Bangali Babu Misra and Mahesh Bal Bhardwaj (Supra). In this judgment, the Hon'ble High Court observed as under: "The question of payment of gratuity in this back ground is to be decided in accordance with Section 4(6) of payment of Gratuity Act 1972 which is quoted below:-
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in Subsection (1)____________ (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage of loss so cause; Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLAPDN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa 0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f418 13a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.26 16:00:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.538/2024
(b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited. ................................................"
15. The Hon'ble High Court, in third last para further elaborated the term Judicial proceedings and held that "Normally, as urged by the learned Standing counsel, "Judicial proceedings' would also include a criminal trial, However, the meaning ascribed to a word has to be given keeping in mind the intention of the legislature and the object which it sought to achieve while using it. A reading of the aforesaid provision shows that "Judicial proceeding" has been used for the purpose of any administrative action or which may have given rise to a "judicial proceeding" relating to the conduct of the Government servant. One of the main object of withholding gratuity is to compensate the Government the loss caused by the Government servant in his functioning as such. In the present case the criminal case relates to two individuals and the trial cannot in any manner fix responsibility of any loss to the Government."
16. Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that damage or loss can be forfeited to the extent of damage of loss to the employer. But in the case in hand, the whole of the gratuity has been withheld/forfeited due to pendency of a criminal case U/s 406/409 IPC, whereas, the loss cause to the Government is to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- only, as narrated in para 4.04 of the claim petition, and thus, withholding whole amount of gratuity which, in my opinion is not justified.
17. In view of the discussions made above, the claim petition deserves to be partly allowed.
ORDER The claim petition is partly allowed. The order dated 22.12.2020 is set-aside to the extent of withholding whole gratuity and the respondents are directed to release the amount of gratuity, except Rs. 40,000/-, alleged to have been missing from the cash chest."
b. The Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in its order, dt.13.05.2016, in OA.No.216/2014, held as follows:
".... in a case where no departmental proceedings are pending but judicial proceedings have been instituted that too not by the employer and not even remotely connected with discharge of official duties, which would never lead to initiation of proceedings under D&A Rules could never be visualized, comprehended or countenanced.
14. In view of the foregoing discussions and enumerations, in absence of any conviction in Criminal Court but merely because of pendency of a criminal case against 'the applicant which is in no way connected with his service and on conclusion whereof nothing would be recoverable by the Govt. from the pensioner, there would seem to be no impediment in allowing gratuity and other held up dues of the applicant.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa 0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f418 13a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.26 16:00:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.538/2024
15. In the aforesaid backdrop the OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the withheld dues within 2 months with an interest @ 8% p.a. No costs."
viii. According to the applicant, the case under DVC is neither a case of serious crime nor a case of Moral Turpitude. It is a case not connected with official duties of the applicant while in service.
Therefore, invoking of Rule 63(5)(a) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, and withholding of Gratuity, Full Pension and Commutation by the respondent authorities, is clearly illegal and arbitrary.
ix. It is further submitted that the applicant had initially approached this Tribunal in OA.No.181/2024, and the same was disposed of on 13.03.2024, with direction to the applicant to submit a comprehensive representation to the competent authority and further directed the respondents to consider the representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks. As directed by this Tribunal, applicant had submitted a representation on 26.03.2024, to the respondents and raised all the legal issues, but none of them were considered by the respondents and the same was rejected, vide the impugned order, in Lr.No.DOP/07/73100/M/01 /DRDS-II, dated: 22 May 2024, of the 1st Respondent. The impugned order, dt.22.05.2024, was issued mechanically and the same is non-speaking and non-
reasoned order, without considering the issues raised by the applicant in his representation. Hence, the OA.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa 0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f418 13a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.26 16:00:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.538/2024
3. On notice, Respondents have put in appearance through their Counsel and filed a written reply wherein the following submissions have been made:
i. Sri G.Balakishan joined as Scientist 'B' in DRDO on 07.11.1988 and retired as Scientist 'G' on 30.04.2023, on attaining the age of superannuation, from the Research Centre Imarat (RCI). However, before retirement, while filling up the pension papers, he was not submitting the details of his wife, her photo and signature, for release of family pension. Later, he conveyed that there was a domestic violence case filed against him by his wife. Due to this, the requisite vigilance clearance could not be issued as judicial proceedings were pending. A copy of the DVC Case No.75 of 2021 has been attached as Annexure-R1. In fact, the department has paid him full pension @ 100%, provisionally. Apart from this, he has also been paid other retirement benefits, like leave encashment Rs.25,66,541/- and CGEGIS Rs.2,18,818/-. However, in view of Rule 63 (5) (a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, gratuity was withheld, in the light of pending judicial proceedings against the officer. The judicial proceedings against him in the criminal case under Section 26 of the DVC Act are yet to be concluded. In para 4 of the DVC, the petitioner has stated that "Shri G.Balakishan has made the life of the petitioner as hell and were used to harms, injures and endangers the health, safety and life of the petitioner". According to the Respondents, the relief of release of gratuity cannot be considered till the conclusion of judicial proceedings in the DVC.
ii. According to the Rules, "grant of pension is covered under service rules, named, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 & 2021 and its Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa 0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f418 13a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.26 16:00:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.538/2024 various provisions". Grant of pension and its continuance is subject to good conduct. It is argued that the department is already paying full pension @ 100% which is securing his right to life under Article 19.
Other retirement benefits, like leave encashment and CGEIGS, have been also paid. Only the gratuity and commutation (taking lump--sum amount in lieu of selling of 40% of pension) has been withheld in the light of the pending judicial proceedings against the petitioner.
iii. It is also submitted that pension is granted to look after not only the pensioner but also his dependent family members, particularly, wife, for the rest of their life. As per the domestic violence case and also the petitioner's application, dt.30.01.2023, the wife of the applicant is living, separately. So, according to the respondents, the settlement of this case is equally important before grant of gratuity. The CCS (Pension) Rules do not provide any waiver based on lack of seriousness of offence / crime.
The said Article 351 of the Constitution of India is not connected with the service rules regarding grant of pension.
iv. It is further submitted that pension under the Central Government is covered under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and cannot be guided by State Govt. Rules or any State Public Service Tribunal decision.
v. It is also contended that the respondents have followed the direction of this Tribunal and thoroughly scrutinized the representation of the applicant and, after that, a reasoned and speaking order was issued duly considering all the points. It is repeated that the applicant has been granted full pension, leave encashment and CGEGIS. Only gratuity has Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa 0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f418 13a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.26 16:00:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.538/2024 been withheld. So the petitioner's plea that the decision is arbitrary and violation of fundamental rights is not correct. The applicant needs to wait for the decision in judicial proceedings in the domestic violence case filed by his wife against him.
vi. Respondents have pleaded that the OA deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated by them.
4. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
5. It is found that the applicant's wife, Smt.Gogu Pushpalatha, had filed a petition u/s 26 of the D.V.C. Act 2005, in the Court of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Special Mobile (PCR) at Karimnagar, on the 26th July, 2021.
The allegations and prayer in the petition are summarised below -
i. The marriage of the petitioner, namely, Smt.G.Pushpalatha was solemnized with the respondent on 14.06.1987 at Repaka Village of Rajanna Sircilla Dist. as per the customs in their community. After the marriage, they were blessed with two female children, namely, Swathi and Sruthi.
ii. That the respondent unnecessarily used to harass the petitioner mentally and physically. Many panchayats were held at their village, and the elders advised the petitioner to live with the respondent only. After the marriage of their children, since the respondent increased his brutal attitude towards the petitioner, she decided to approach her brother and, with the involvement of elders, they held a panchayat on 31.12.2020, where the respondent assured to pay her Rs.55,000/-, as maintenance, per month, and also assured her that he will not quarrel with her. But, the respondent never changed his attitude. Then, at last, the petitioner left the respondent in 2021 and is residing at her brother's place in Karimnagar. She sought order for her protection, monetary relief, including maintenance and compensation in terms of Sections 18, 19(1), 20, 21 & 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
6. The applicant, Sri Gogu Balakishan, on the other hand, filed FCOP No.1362 of 2021, in the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar. The cause of action reads as follows -
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa 0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f418 13a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.26 16:00:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.No.538/2024 "The cause of action for filing of the petition initially arose on 18.10.1987 when the petitioner and respondent were married and again on 21.06.2021 when the respondent left the society of the petitioner and the cause of action is continuing and still subsisting."
In the above FCOP, the order, dt.07.03.2022, reads as follows:
"This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. P.Sridhar Reddy, Counsel for the Petitioner and the respondent remained exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth decrees as follows:
1. That the petition of the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights be and the same is hereby allowed.
2. That the respondent is directed to join the company of the petitioner within two months from the date of this Order."
As per the version of the applicant in the O.A., his wife continues to stay away from him.
7. In compliance with the order, dated 13.03.2024, of this Tribunal, in OA No.181 of 2024, the representation of the applicant for normal pension and gratuity was disposed of, vide order, dt.22.05.2024, on the ground that judicial proceedings are pending against him. The counter, filed in this O.A., by the Respondents, also states that judicial proceedings in criminal case, involving Section 26 of the DV (Domestic Violence) Act, is pending in DVC Case No.75 of 2021 before the JFCM, Karimnagar. The DVC case was filed on 26.7.2021.
The petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court of RR District at L.B. Nagar, filed on 8.9.2021 by the applicant, was disposed of on 7.3.2022.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that though restitution was ordered , the wife continues to live separately. According to the counsel for the applicant, the rule position, as mentioned at para 4.5, and the settled law, at Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAPDN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa 0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f418 13a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.26 16:00:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.No.538/2024 paras 4.7 & 4.8 of the O.A., make it clear that, for the sake of personal reasons between husband and wife, Gratuity, Commutation and regular Pension cannot be withheld. Counsel for the applicant has furnished a copy of the proceedings, dated 24.5.2022, of the JFCM, Karimnagar, stating that the DVC case is filed as the applicant herein had failed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/-, as agreed to before elders.
9. According to Rule 63(5)(A), as the applicant is not charged with any allegation regarding causing loss to the department or otherwise or of any departmental misconduct, his retiral benefits cannot be stopped. Counsel for the applicant further argues that the circumstances discussed in this Rule pertain to pending departmental or judicial proceedings only. However, as per the judgements cited by him, the current dispute is not to be treated as a bar on payment of the normal retiral benefits. It does not involve any dispute between the employer and the employee nor is it related to any loss caused to the department. Therefore, this rule cannot be invoked in the present case. He has also argued that, even in case of a minor penalty, he cannot be denied all these benefits.
10. Further arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. He has taken us through an order, dt. 13.05.2016, in OA 216/2014 of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, at Kolkata (Annexure A-III) and contends that the present matter is squarely covered by the said order. Learned counsel has also referred to Paras 14, 25, 26 & 27 of the judgment, dt.
08.10.2021, of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, in the matter of Devendra Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, in Writ P No. 15093 of Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAPDN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa 0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f418 13a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.26 16:00:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA.No.538/2024 2020. Counsel for the Applicant has reiterated his stance taken in Paras 4.7 & 4.8 of the OA and pleaded for release of Gratuity amount. According to him, all other pensionary dues have been released. Counsel for Respondents has cited Rule 63 (5)(a) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 (Annexure R-2). She has reiterated the argument that Gratuity cannot be released since DV case is going on against the applicant. When questioned, presuming that the DV Case ends in conviction, whether, under the concerned Act, there can be any impact on the release of Gratuity, no reply is forthcoming. She has simply referred to paras 1, 2 & 4 of the Reply Statement, in this context.
11. Apart from the rulings cited above by the applicant, the learned counsel for the applicant has furnished a copy of the order, dated, 29th October, 2021, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in W.P. No.12817 of 2017.
The relevant paras of the order are extracted hereunder:
"18. In our view, the criminal proceedings filed at the instance of the daughter-in-law of the petitioner under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and other related provisions against the petitioner have nothing to do with the employment of the petitioner with respondent nos.1 and 3. If any criminal proceedings would have been filed and pending investigation relating to the employment of the petitioner with the respondent no.1, the situation would have been different. The principle laid down by this Court in case of Shrikant Ramchandra Inamdar (supra) applies to the facts of this case. We do not propose to take any different view in the matter.
19.xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
20.A perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent nos.1 to 3 and affidavit-in rejoinder filed by the petitioner indicates that part payment by way of subsistence allowance and under other heads have been alleged to have been paid by the respondent nos.1 to 3 to the petitioner. According to the petitioner more amount is due and payable as set out in the affidavit-in-rejoinder. Respondent nos.1 Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAPDN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa 0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f418 13a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.26 16:00:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA.No.538/2024 and 3 are liable to pay the balance amount due to the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner continued to be in service till the date of her superannuation all throughout on the ground that there being no departmental enquiry having been initiated against the petitioner and till such date there being no conviction in the criminal proceedings which may not even otherwise be relevant for the purpose of the employment of the petitioner with the respondent nos.1 to 3.
21. We accordingly pass the following order:-
(a) Impugned order of suspension dated 8th June, 2016 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is declared to be regular in service as prayed. The petitioner is entitled to be granted all benefits before retirement and after her retirement on superannuation by treating her as regular employee. The service dues on this premise shall be paid by the respondent nos.1 to 3 to the petitioner within six weeks from today with interest @ 8% p.a. from the due date.
(b) The arrears of post retirement benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within six weeks with interest @ 8% p.a. from due date payment of gratuity shall be made with interest at statutory rate.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx."
12. The facts of the present case, which have been discussed above, place it clearly within the category of the cases cited on behalf of the applicant and, therefore, the matter is no longer res integra. This Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide the allegations and counter-allegations between the husband and wife. However, it is clear that they have no bearing on the conduct of the applicant in the course of duty. It is also not the case of the respondents that any departmental proceedings have been initiated or are under contemplation against the applicant. The department has not suffered any loss in the course of official dealings of the applicant. The rules under which Gratuity and the other pensionary benefits were withheld, do not permit action Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAPDN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa 0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f418 13a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.26 16:00:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA.No.538/2024 against a Government employee in the circumstances obtaining in this case.
Therefore, the applicant is entitled to all the pensionary benefits due at the time of his retirement on superannuation. Respondents are directed to clear all his dues within three months of receipt of this order along with interest at the rate applicable under the GPF, from the date of his retirement, till the date of payment.
13. The O.A. is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) Administrative Member 26.09.2025 /ps/pv/ Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa 0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f418 13a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.26 16:00:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0