Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Y Samuel Ratnam vs South Central Railway on 10 December, 2025
OA/821/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/021/0821/2024
HYDERABAD, this the 10th day of December, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member
Sri.Y.Samuel Ratnam aged 60 Yrs., Gr. 'C'
S/o Y.Prasada Rao., Retd., SSO (A),
S.C.Rly, R/o H.No. RK 63 Sri Sairam Nivas,
2nd Street R.K.Nagar, Malkajgiri,
Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist., PIN-500017 Telangana,
..... Applicant.
(By Advocate: Mr. G Pavana Murthy)
Vs.
UOI Reptd by its.,
1.The General Manager, South Central Railway,
Railnilayam, 3rd Floor, Secunderabad. 500025.
2.The Principal Financial Advisor (PFA)
3rd Floor "C" Block Railnilyam, S.C.Railway,
Secunderabad.500025.
3. The Deputy Chief Accounts Officer,
(G) (Dy.CAO) 0/0 (PFA)3rd Floor "C" Block Railnilyam,
S.C.Railway, Secunderabad. 500025.
4. The Senior Accounts Financial Advisor (G) (Sr.AFA/G)
O/o (PFA)3rd Floor "C" Block Railnilyam, S.C.Railway,
Secunderabad.500025.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. B Gayatri Varma, Sr. CGSC)
-----
PRACHI
Digitally signed by PRACHI BHASKAR
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal,
OU=CAT, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad,
S=Telangana, STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st
Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public Garden
Page 1 of 10
Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone=
f233c0f0b70fcd586e127f3307e1fedf2c0558abb
BHASK 0fd006c6778a2d87675e6e2, SERIALNUMBER=
6067b01334bd428ff130814694f5762775bdf803
cd7babc6a0a08ad51b915c39, E=
[email protected], CN=PRACHI
BHASKAR
AR Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.01.06 16:06:30+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1
OA/821/2024
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member) By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:
The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set-aside the para 2 and 3 of R2 letter dated 12.7.2024 and further direct the Respondent No.2 to Release the withhold amount of Gratuity and Commutation (40%) from the Retirement Benefits/Pension of the Applicant with 18% of Interest w.e.f 01.07.2024 and pass such other order/orders as deem fit and proper in the interest of Principles of Natural Justice."
2. The brief facts of the case, as contended by the applicant, are that-
(i.) He was appointed on 22.05.1989 as Junior Accounts Assistant through the Railway Recruitment Board, Secunderabad, and was posted at the office of the Sr. Divisional Financial Manager, Secunderabad. He cleared the Appendix-III A Departmental Examination in 1994 and was promoted as Section Officer (Accounts) in 2006. After attaining the age of superannuation, he retired as Senior Section Officer (Accounts) from the Traffic Accounts under the administrative control of the 3rd Respondent. The applicant has rendered more than 34 years of unblemished service in the Accounts Department of the South Central Railway and was honoured with cash awards, etc. (ii.) The applicant married one Sudha Rani in 1993 and they have two sons, both major and employed in multinational companies. His wife is working as a teacher in a private school. As the applicant approached the age of superannuation, financial differences arose, and his wife began insisting that his full retirement benefits be deposited in her name and in the names of their children. When the applicant declined, she allegedly began pressurizing and blackmailing him, threatening to file criminal cases, unless he agreed to her Digitally signed by PRACHI BHASKAR Page 2 of 10 PRACHI DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone= f233c0f0b70fcd586e127f3307e1fedf2c0558abb BHASK 0fd006c6778a2d87675e6e2, SERIALNUMBER= 6067b01334bd428ff130814694f5762775bdf803 cd7babc6a0a08ad51b915c39, E= [email protected], CN=PRACHI BHASKAR AR Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.06 16:06:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 OA/821/2024 demands. As the applicant did not agree to his wife's demands, she lodged a complaint before the Railway authorities on 28.06.2022 and also filed a police case vide FIR No. 592/2022, dt.06.06.2022, under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She further initiated Domestic Violence proceedings vide DVC No. 70/2022 before the Medchal Malkajgiri Magistrate Court. During the preliminary enquiry, the Investigating Officer found that no grounds existed for arrest of the applicant. Both parties were counselled to amicably resolve the dispute, but they declined. When the applicant was asked by Respondent No.4 to submit a joint photograph with his spouse for processing his pension papers, he sent his representation, dt.12.06.2024 (Annexure A-2), stating that he had already filed a divorce petition vide FCOP No. 233/2023, which is pending. He requested that his settlement papers be processed strictly as per rules without insisting on a joint photograph or joint bank account.
(iii.) In response to the applicant's representation, dt.12.06.2024, the 2nd Respondent, vide letter, dated 20.06.2024, stopped processing the applicant's pension papers and returned them, causing serious prejudice to the applicant. The applicant, through his representation, dated 21.06.2024, had already expressed his inability to obtain a joint photograph or any supporting documents from his spouse.
(iv.) As there was no progress in the criminal case pending before the Magistrate Court and the applicant was approaching superannuation, his wife, with ill motive, addressed a letter, dated 22.05.2024, to the General Manager, South Central Railway, requesting that his retirement benefits be withheld. After attaining superannuation on 30.06.2024, he retired from service, but did Digitally signed by PRACHI BHASKAR Page 3 of 10 PRACHI DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone= f233c0f0b70fcd586e127f3307e1fedf2c0558abb BHASK 0fd006c6778a2d87675e6e2, SERIALNUMBER= 6067b01334bd428ff130814694f5762775bdf803 cd7babc6a0a08ad51b915c39, E= [email protected], CN=PRACHI BHASKAR AR Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.06 16:06:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 OA/821/2024 not receive any retirement benefits on that day, whereas others, retiring on the same date, received all their dues, pension documents and service certificates.
On 02.07.2024, only leave salary, last month's salary, and Provident Fund amounts were credited to his account. The remaining benefits such as Gratuity, Commutation and CGEIS were not released, causing deep anguish to the applicant.
(v.) The applicant preferred an appeal to the 1st Respondent, the General Manager, South Central Railway, on 05.07.2024 (Annexure A-6), stating that, as on the date of his retirement, i.e., 30.06.2024, no Court had issued any order directing the Railway authorities to withhold his settlement dues or retirement benefits. He also clarified the relevant provisions of the 1993 Railway Services (Pension) Rules and contended that the action of Respondent No.3 in withholding his pensionary benefits was without jurisdiction and without proper application of mind. He requested that his settlement dues be released.
(vi.) In response to the applicant's representations, dated 05.07.2024, 12.06.2024, and 21.06.2024, the 2nd Respondent, through a letter, dated 12.07.2024, stated that leave salary, Provident Fund, and CGEIS were under process, and that issuance of the provisional PPO and service certificate had been delayed. However, Respondent No.2 withheld gratuity and commutation in contravention of Rules 9 and 10 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Aggrieved by the arbitrary action, the applicant has challenged the letter, dated 12.07.2024, as illegal and unsustainable, before this Tribunal.
3. After notice, respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed a detailed reply and opposed the relief on the grounds that-
Digitally signed by PRACHI BHASKAR Page 4 of 10PRACHI DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone= f233c0f0b70fcd586e127f3307e1fedf2c0558abb BHASK 0fd006c6778a2d87675e6e2, SERIALNUMBER= 6067b01334bd428ff130814694f5762775bdf803 cd7babc6a0a08ad51b915c39, E= [email protected], CN=PRACHI BHASKAR AR Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.06 16:06:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 OA/821/2024 (i.) Every retiring railway servant is required to furnish details of all family members along with a joint photograph duly signed by both the employee and the spouse. But the applicant did not furnish the details. Further, applicant's wife had expressed her apprehension to the AGM/SCR/SC, on 22.05.2024, stating that her name might not be included in the pension papers.
She had also mentioned that her sons are yet to be settled. Since a divorce petition filed by the Applicant is still pending before the Hon'ble Court and, also, as her name is available in the official records, as per the nomination form, submitted by the Applicant, on 30.06.2009, and her name is recorded as a family member (Wife) and dependent in the HRMS module, the advice to the Applicant to include his spouse's name in the Pension Booklet is in order, as per the existing guidelines, and also for protecting the interests of his spouse, for family pension, in the event of his death. Though the office had returned the pension papers on 20.06.2024, the case was processed without inclusion of his spouse's name, to avoid any delay, as the Applicant had expressed his inability to get the joint photograph, and other details. A Provisional Pension Payment Order was issued in favour of the Applicant only, without his spouse's name.
(ii.) Further, it is submitted that a DVC case was filed by his spouse against the Applicant on 30.07.2022, and it is pending before the Hon'ble Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum-I Addl. Jr.Civil Judge, at Malkajgiri, for adjudication. As per Rules 9 and 10 of the Railway Servants (Pension) Rules, 1993, if the Officer/Staff is figuring in any department/judicial proceedings, gratuity may be withheld and provisional pension may be granted.
Accordingly, the competent authority has sanctioned Provisional Pension, Digitally signed by PRACHI BHASKAR Page 5 of 10 PRACHI DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone= f233c0f0b70fcd586e127f3307e1fedf2c0558abb BHASK 0fd006c6778a2d87675e6e2, SERIALNUMBER= 6067b01334bd428ff130814694f5762775bdf803 cd7babc6a0a08ad51b915c39, E= [email protected], CN=PRACHI BHASKAR AR Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.06 16:06:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 OA/821/2024 Leave Salary, CGEIS and PF duly withholding DCRG and the Commutation amount. Payment of the released amounts was made on 01.07.2024, including the last wages: Rs.1,76,745/-, Leave salary: Rs.11,72,252/-; Provident Fund:
Rs.12,11,188/-. And, further, on 22.07.2024, CGEIS, amounting to Rs.54,281/-
was paid. So, there was no delay on the part of the Administration in paying the applicant's settlement amounts. The pending settlement benefits will be released after finalization of the judicial proceedings pending before the Hon'ble Court against the applicant. Further, the delay in issue of the Provisional PPO was due to technical problems and the same was issued on 19.07.2024 and the PPO copy was received by the applicant on 23.07.2024.
(iii.) Further, as per Railway Board letter, dated 26.07.2024, Rules 9 and 10 of the RS(Pension) Rules-1993 have been amended in line with the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021. Under the amended Rule-9, Presidential approval is required only where the pensioner retired from a post for which the President is the appointing authority. In all other cases, the Railway Board is competent to order withholding or withdrawing pension/gratuity on proof of grave misconduct. Consultation with the UPSC is not required where the President is not the appointing authority. On finalisation of the pending Judicial Proceedings against the Applicant, the Disciplinary Authority will forward the outcome for final orders in accordance with Rule-10(2)(a).
Therefore, the Applicant's contention that Respondent No.2 failed to obtain approval of the Hon'ble President for withholding gratuity and commutation is incorrect. It is further submitted that the case has been dealt with strictly in accordance with the extant provisions of the RS(Pension) Rules-1993. The Pension Sanctioning Authority has rightly sanctioned provisional pension Digitally signed by PRACHI BHASKAR Page 6 of 10 PRACHI DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone= f233c0f0b70fcd586e127f3307e1fedf2c0558abb BHASK 0fd006c6778a2d87675e6e2, SERIALNUMBER= 6067b01334bd428ff130814694f5762775bdf803 cd7babc6a0a08ad51b915c39, E= [email protected], CN=PRACHI BHASKAR AR Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.06 16:06:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 OA/821/2024 under Rules 9 & 10 read with RBE No.25/2004. There is no deviation from any of the extant Rules and policy.
5. Heard both sides in detail and perused the records.
6. The Counsel for the applicant has relied upon para 2 of RBE No.25/2004 which allows the department to take appropriate action in case the interests of Railways are not affected by cases relating to divorce, etc.
7. The Counsel for the respondents argues that the matter is not purely Civil in nature as the applicant, Y. Samuel Ratnam, is facing a criminal case in DVC No. 17/2022 under sections 498 IPC, 3,4 DP Act, under FIR No,592/2022, and the same is pending before the Hon'ble Court. There is a claim for maintenance by the wife against the applicant and also the applicant is facing criminal charges U/S 498A IPC, which is a serious offence, therefore, he cannot be let off till the conclusion of the judicial proceedings in the matter.
8. When asked to clarify, whether any departmental action has been initiated or he is considered to be liable for any loss or damage to the department, it has been clarified that no such facts have emerged and no departmental proceedings are contemplated against the applicant.
9. The counsel for the applicant pleads that, in a similar case, this Tribunal has already taken a view, based on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in WP No.12817 of 2017. We have already decided the case of an applicant appearing in similar circumstances, in OA 538/2024. There seems to be no material difference between that case and the present case. It is also an accepted fact that the outcome of the pending maintenance case does not depend on the pension being received by an ex-employee.
Digitally signed by PRACHI BHASKAR Page 7 of 10
PRACHI DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone= f233c0f0b70fcd586e127f3307e1fedf2c0558abb BHASK 0fd006c6778a2d87675e6e2, SERIALNUMBER= 6067b01334bd428ff130814694f5762775bdf803 cd7babc6a0a08ad51b915c39, E= [email protected], CN=PRACHI BHASKAR AR Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.06 16:06:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 OA/821/2024
10. OA.No.538/2024, vide order, dt.26.09.2025, was decided as follows -
"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 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 Digitally signed by PRACHI BHASKAR Page 8 of 10 PRACHI DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone= f233c0f0b70fcd586e127f3307e1fedf2c0558abb BHASK 0fd006c6778a2d87675e6e2, SERIALNUMBER= 6067b01334bd428ff130814694f5762775bdf803 cd7babc6a0a08ad51b915c39, E= [email protected], CN=PRACHI BHASKAR AR Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.06 16:06:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 OA/821/2024
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 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 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."
11. In the light of the above discussion, the matter is no longer res integra.
Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed with a direction to release the pending Digitally signed by PRACHI BHASKAR Page 9 of 10 PRACHI DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone= f233c0f0b70fcd586e127f3307e1fedf2c0558abb BHASK 0fd006c6778a2d87675e6e2, SERIALNUMBER= 6067b01334bd428ff130814694f5762775bdf803 cd7babc6a0a08ad51b915c39, E= [email protected], CN=PRACHI BHASKAR AR Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.06 16:06:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 OA/821/2024 settlement/pensionary dues to the applicant, as per his eligibility at the time of his superannuation, within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with interest at the rate applicable under the GPF, from the date of his retirement till the date of payment. No order as to costs.
(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /pb/ Digitally signed by PRACHI BHASKAR Page 10 of 10 PRACHI DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone= f233c0f0b70fcd586e127f3307e1fedf2c0558abb BHASK 0fd006c6778a2d87675e6e2, SERIALNUMBER= 6067b01334bd428ff130814694f5762775bdf803 cd7babc6a0a08ad51b915c39, E= [email protected], CN=PRACHI BHASKAR AR Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.06 16:06:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1