Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
C Mani vs National Buildings Construction ... on 27 March, 2026
Item 34/C-6
O.A. No.3918/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3918/2025
This the 27th day of March, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
Mr. C. Mani,
Aged about 60 years,
S/o Late Mr. M. Chetty,
R/o No. 605, 11th Street, Karpaga Nagar,
K. Pudur, Madurai,
Tamilnadu-625007
.... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Maria Mugesh Kannan)
Versus
1. NBCC (I) LTD,
Through its Chairman cum Managing Director,
NBCC (I) LTD, NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
2. The Chief General Manager (HRM)
NBCC (I), LTD, NBCC Bhawan,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. The General Manager, (HRM)
NBCC (I), LTD, NBCC Bhawan,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
.... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Mr. Aishwary Bajpai, Mr. Varun)
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A) The brief factual matrix of the case is that the applicant had retired from the respondents' organization NBCC on 30.06.2025 on attaining the age of Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.04.07 15:16:10 Kumar+05'30' 2 superannuation. Thereafter, the applicant vide representations dated 04.07.2025 and 09.09.2025 sought release of his retiral benefits specifically Performance Related Pay (PRP), gratuity and leave encashment. The applicant was given a reply by the respondents dated 02.09.2025 received by the applicant on 11.09.2025, informing that according to clause 8(20) (ii) and (b) the NBCC (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1993, the said retiral benefits would not be released to the applicant on account of pending disciplinary/judicial proceedings against him.
2. The applicant, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.09.2025, has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief (s):
"(i) To direct the respondents to release the gratuity, leave encashment and performance related pay for the financial year 2024-25 along with interest @24%.
(ii) To direct the respondents to release the gratuity, leave encashment and performance related pay for the financial year 2024-25 and quashing the impugned letter dated 02.09.2025.
(iii) To allow the OA with cost.
(iv) To pass any further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The short issue to be adjudicated in this matter is whether the applicant has a vested right to get his retiral Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.04.07 15:16:10 Kumar+05'30' 3 benefits i.e. PRP, leave encashment and gratuity, especially when he states that there are no disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings pending against him. In support of his claim qua unjustly withholding of retiral benefits, the applicant drew the attention of the Bench to the rules of the respondents' organisation regarding release of gratuity, leave encashment and PRP, mentioned in paragraphs 59 and 60 of the OA, relevant portion whereof reads as under:-
"16. General Guidelines.
(a) Arrear pertaining to the implementation of pay revision of Board level and below Board level Executives w.e.f.
01.01.2017 will be subject to deduction of Income Tax.
(b) Any recovery due from an executive to the Company, will also be fully adjusted against pay revision arrears to him/her.
(c) Payment of arrears on account of pay revision shall be subject to normal deduction towards CPF, Income Tax, etc.
(d) The excess payment, wrong payment, clerical and arithmetical errors, in calculation of the arrears shall be subject to correction, adjustment and recoveries.
(e) In case any other recoveries due from an Executive of the Company, will also be fully adjusted against pay revision due to such Executives.
Now, based on the Department of Expenditure, Mn. Of Finance OM No. 21-1/2011-E.11(B) dated 05.08.2013 and 19.02.2014, the above facility has been extended to the following :-
(i) To an orthopedically handicapped employee if he or she has a minimum of 40% permanent partial disability of either one or both upper limbs or one or both lower limbs OR 50% permanent partial disability of one or both upper limbs and one or both lower limbs combined; and Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.04.07 15:16:10 Kumar+05'30' 4
(ii)To deaf and dumb employees subject to the condition that the recommendations of the Head of ENT Department of a Government Civil Hospital is produced."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that inasmuch as there has been no disciplinary proceeding or judicial proceeding pending against the applicant as on 30.06.2025, which is date of his retirement, there is no reason as to why the respondents have chosen to stop the release of the retiral benefits including PRP, gratuity and leave encashment to the applicant. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Baljit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others [CWP No. 28933 of 2022 decided on 09.02.2024], paragraph 10 whereof reads as:-
"10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman 1991(3) SCT 317 decided the question of law as to when a proceedings are deemed to be pending against an employee in respect of the departmental inquiry as well as in respect of the criminal proceedings so as to give right to the department to withhold the benefits. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is only when a charge-sheet is served upon a delinquent employee during the departmental proceedings, the departmental inquiry is stated to be pending against an employee, which will give right to the respondents to take an action against the employee in accordance with law. Similarly, where a Challan/charge- sheet has been presented against a person in the criminal proceedings, the criminal proceedings are to be treated as pending against the said person so as to give jurisdiction to the employer to take action against an employee. The relevant paragraph of the judgment in K.V. Jankiraman's case (supra) is as under:
Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.04.07 15:16:10 Kumar+05'30' 5 "16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the chargememo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-
sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many-cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge memo/charge- sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it would not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows:
"(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official;
Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.04.07 15:16:10 Kumar+05'30' 6 (2) ................................................ (3) ................................................ (4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge sheet filed before the criminal court and not before."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant is also relying upon judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the case of Swaraj Basu vs. Indira Gandhi National Open University [WP(C) No. 16729/2024 decided on 22.08.2025], paragraph 12 whereof reads as under:-
"12. Explanation 1(b)(i) provides that criminal proceedings are considered to have been instituted only on the date when a complaint is filed, or a police report is submitted, on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. The reference is evidently to the final report submitted by the police under Section 173 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733 ["CrPC"], or to the complaint under Section 200 CrPC4 , on which alone the Magistrate could have taken cognizance. That stage had admittedly not arisen on the date of the petitioner's superannuation, and indeed had not arisen for at least eighteen months thereafter, when the CBI still informed IGNOU that the cases were "under investigation."
Since judicial proceedings had not been "instituted" at the time of retirement, the order sanctioning provisional pension was ultra vires Rule 8(3). Consequently, withholding of gratuity under Rule 8(4)(c) also does not arise."
6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for applicant by referring to the counter reply as well as the oral arguments and states that the present OA deserves to be dismissed on account of the fact that there has been a material suppression of facts by the applicant. He further Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.04.07 15:16:10 Kumar+05'30' 7 states that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant was concluded, and vide order dated 29.04.2024 [page 85 of the paper book] a major penalty of reduction to one lower stage in the time scale of pay of Rs. 1,00,000-2,60,000 for a period of 12 months with cumulative effect was imposed on the applicant and accordingly his basic pay of Rs. 1,73,070/- was reduced to Rs. 1,68,020/- as on 23.04.2024 and if his increment is due during this period of 12 months, he can earn the same. He further states that the learned counsel for the applicant has not disclosed the fact of conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and that resulted in imposition of a major penalty, as narrated before during the course of his arguments. Learned counsel for the respondents also drew the attention of the Bench to the same rules and regulations of the respondents organisation governing the release of gratuity, leave encashment and PRP, relied upon by the applicant as narrated in paras 59-60 of the OA. Learned counsel for the respondents very clearly states that for the same offence of the applicant which resulted in huge loss to the respondents organisation running into several crores, an FIR was registered by the CBI on 29.08.2024. He also states that this Tribunal, in one of its earlier hearings, directed the respondents to ascertain the present status of Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.04.07 15:16:10 Kumar+05'30' 8 the case pending with the CBI, to which he has stated that statement of the applicant has already been recorded therein and respondents organization was asked to accord sanction for prosecution against the applicant and four others.
7. Under these circumstance, mainly on these two grounds that the applicant has suppressed the material facts of initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and conclusion whereof on 29.04.2024 with the award of the major penalty, as narrated above, and the rules of NBCC narrated in the previous paragraph, he is not entitled for the release of the retiral benefits including gratuity, leave encashment and PRP.
8. We have heard the contentions of both the parties. With their assistance, we have also gone through the pleadings available on record.
9. We find that the applicant has taken the stand that no disciplinary/judicial proceedings were initiated against the applicant and, therefore, his retiral benefits ought to have been released. However, he forgot to mention that disciplinary proceeding was indeed initiated against the applicant and resulted in imposition of the major penalty, though this fact was later on pointed out to us by the Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.04.07 15:16:10 Kumar+05'30' 9 respondents. It is a different matter that the said major penalty is being challenged by the applicant by way of filing another OA in this Tribunal.
10. We have given thoughtful consideration while quoting the rules at the appropriate paragraph, which clearly provides that the rules are in existence to safeguard the financial interest of the respondents and at the same time balance the financial interest of the applicant also in the event of his wining the case either in the disciplinary proceeding or judicial proceedings. That is why the rules very clearly provide that such payment, if due to the applicant, can be released after he successfully gets exonerated both from the disciplinary proceedings as well as the judicial proceedings. The contention of the applicant that judicial proceedings cannot be considered to have been pending against him inasmuch as the judicial proceedings are deemed to be in existence only from the time when the competent court has taken cognisance of the charges contained in the FIR, and to adjudge the applicability thereof, the facts and circumstances of the present case have to be kept in mind by the Tribunal. The averments made by the respondents very clearly bring to light the fact that the judicial proceeding is under way and at this stage Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.04.07 15:16:10 Kumar+05'30' 10 nothing warrants the Tribunal to lean in favour of the applicant and direct the respondents to release the gratuity and other retiral benefits which, in any case, would be payable to the applicant, if he successfully gets exonerated, both in the disciplinary and the judicial proceedings.
11. The plea of the learned counsel for the applicant that the PRP qua the applicant has already been withheld for the year 2021-22 and for the same offence, such PRP cannot be again withheld for the year 2024-25, is also untenable for the reason that these two pertain to two different years and the year 2024-25 for which the applicant is claiming release of the PRP in his prayer clause is squarely covered by the currency of the major penalty imposed by the respondents vide order dated 29.04.2025
11. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we see no merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant for the release of such benefits and the OA is accordingly dismissed.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) (B. Anand)
Member (J) Member(A)
'Prashant'
Prash Prashant
Kumar
ant 2026.04.07
15:16:10
Kumar+05'30'