Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Ramkinkar Gupta Retd. Ias vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 13 January, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTIG : INDORE
Original Application No.860 of 2013
Indore, this Wednesday, the 13th day of January, 2016
DR. K.B. SURESH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
MR. G.P.SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Ramkinkar Gupta Retd. IAS,
S/o Shri Shiv Prasadji Gupta, Aged 63 years,
Occ: Pensioner, R/o: 97, Sector R, Mahalaxmi Nagar,
Near Bombay Hospital Indore M.P 452001 -Applicant
(By Advocate Ms. Anjali Bhargawa)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India through its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Department of Personnel and Training, North Block,
New Delhi 110001.
2. State of M.P through the Principal Secretary,
General Administration Department, Mantralaya,
Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal M.P. 462004.
3. The Accountant General, Office of the Accountant General,
(Accountants & Rights) II Madhya Pradesh,
Gwalior M.P. 474002.
4. Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi 110069. - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri R.K. Vyas for respondent No.1 and Shri Aditya Choudhary, proxy counsel of Shri Vijay Pandey for respondent No.2.)
O R D E R (O R A L)
By Dr. K.B. Suresh, Judicial Member :-
Apparently the applicant superannuated on 31.10.2010.
2. The case of the applicant is that on that particular date, no proceedings under Rule 6 of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 were pending against him, but then we have gone through the record and find that on 15.7.2009, a proceeding has been initiated against him and Rule B to the explanation to Rule 6 very clearly states that, in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which a complaint is made or a charge-sheet is submitted, to the criminal court, a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted. If such a judicial proceeding is instituted then the matters are processed and progressed for the applicant to find his guilt.
3. In-fact we had the benefit of the order of the Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Petition No.5637/2009 and in Writ Petition No.6019/2009 wherein the crux of the issue was examined and the High Court held that it will be appropriate to raise all the points before the Trial Court.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that a petition under section 239 of CRPC has been filed and even though the matter has been heard twice, no order has been pronounced yet. She laments that looking to the proceedings in the Trial Court, the applicant will be dead before finality could be attained. She has also questioned that the applicant is now in trial and his rights under Act 20 of the Constitution of India to defend himself will be lost by delay. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant relies on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastava & Anr. 2013 (10) Scale 310, which indicates that pension and gratuity are not bounty but they are property within the ambit of civil law. We are in respectful agreement with it. But the learned counsel for the respondents has taken us through the charges and the backgrounds of the case, and therefore, we find that the question of the gratuity will have to await till the conclusion is arrived at by the Trial Court as the Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore where they have passed an order in WP Nos.5637/2009 & 6019/2009, which is protected the right of the applicant to file an application under Section 239 so that the 2009 process is expedited in the Trial Court, failing which, the gratuity must be allowed to be retained with the Government as serious allegations of charges are levelled against him.
5. But at the same time, we also find that five years have already been elapsed from the superannuation of the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant is unable to say whether the other DCRG like Leave Encashment and GPF has been made available to the applicant or not. She tried to contact him through mobile, but she was unable to get him. To provide the adequate opportunity of being heard, we feel that it will be appropriate and correct to order that the GPF and the Leave Salary, if not released to the applicant, shall be released, within the next one month from the date of communication of this order. The question of gratuity to be released will be decided on the conclusion of petition u/s 239, which is pending in the Trial Court. If the applicant succeeds in that case then the gratuity along with full pension shall be paid to him within one month of it. But then if it is against him then naturally it has to wait till the conclusion of the trial.
6. With these directions, the O.A is closed. No costs.
(G.P. Singhal) (Dr. K.B. Suresh) Administrative Member Judicial Member am 2 OA 860/2013Page 2 of 3