Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Subey Lal Yadav vs Union Of India on 27 November, 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW Original Application No. 332/00429/2021 This, the 27th day of November, 2024 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-J Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-A Subeylal Yadav, aged about 71 years, s/o Ram Raj Yadav r/o Village Chamarkha, Kurebhar, District- Sultanpur.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Sri Awaneesh Yadav.
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA, through Ministry of Defense, South Block, New Delhi.
2. Principle Controller of Defense Account (Central Command) Carriappa Road, Lucknow.
3. Incharge Accountant Salary Account Office, Dogra Ayodhya.
............ Respondents
Advocate: Ms. Prayagmati Gupta.
O R D E R [ORAL]
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member (J) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
2. Through Original Application, applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
"i. Issue an order or direction to the respondents to make payment of gratuity, commutation money and full pension withheld in the pretext of the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
ii. Issue an order as this Hon'ble Tribunal considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
iii. Allowing this Original Application with cost in favour of the applicant."
3. Tersely put, the case of the applicant is that applicant was appointed in the Respondent Department who retired on 31.08.2010 from the post of Auditor Pay and Account (ORS) Dogra Regiment Centre. An FIR was lodged against the applicant in the year 1991 under Section 409, 420, 467 of IPC in Page 1 of 4 P.S. Cantt District Faizabad with allegation of misappropriate the Rs. 7050/- by making forged signature of one Shri Ram Ashray Yadav.
Applicant made representation before the competent authority for release of gratuity whereupon the competent authority intimated the applicant to file an affidavit in stamp of Rs. 100/- to the effect that no criminal case is pending against him in any court of law duly issued by notary.
On information received under RTI Act- 2005, applicant got to know that on account of pendency of the criminal /judicial proceedings under Section 69(i)(c) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, payment of gratuity to the applicant by respondents has been withheld.
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 at the time of retirement of the applicant, a criminal case no. 406/1991 State of UP vs. Subey Lal Yadav under sections 409, 420, 467 of IPC was pending against the applicant in the District Court, Faizabad- ACJM Ayodhya and the same is still pending, hence, as per provisions of Rule 69(1)(c) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, payment of gratuity and commutation of pension have been withheld. O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant filed rejoinder affidavit stating therein that applicant has been roped in false case by the his officer and the proceedings of the criminal case No. 406/1991 have been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 06.07.2004 in Criminal Misc. No. 1164/2004 as such Respondents have no reason to withhold the gratuity merely on the basis pendency of criminal proceedings.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that payment of gratuity cannot be withheld under Payment of Gratuity Act- 1972.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the aforesaid submissions and argued that under Rule 69 (1) (C) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 no gratuity shall be paid to the applicant until conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings and until final orders are issued thereon. OA lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
8. In Writ Petition No. A- 2248 of 2021- UOI Thru. Secy. Communication Ministry of Deptt. Of Posts and Ors. v. Mithai Ram and Page 2 of 4 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.
9. 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 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 (1) (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 3 of 4In 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.."
10. 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.
11. Applying of the aforesaid law to the present case, it is admitted fact that applicant was employee of the respondent department who retired on 31.08.2010 from the post of Auditor Pay and Account. During the service period a criminal case No. 406/1991, State of UP Vs. Subeylal under Section 409, 420, 467 of IPC was registered against the applicant before the ACJM-I Ayodhya and during pendency of the said case, applicant has retired. Due to pendency of the said criminal case, payment of gratuity and commutation of pension have been withheld as per rules 69(1)(c) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972.
12. 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 against him
13. 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.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
Digitally signed by Jay
Narayan Singh
Date: 2024.11.28
'13:13:33 +05'30
Page 4 of 4