Wazir Chand vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 14 September, 2000
5.7 In view of the aforesaid Rule position, it is
highlighted that the reliance has been placed on
Rule 69 (2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, which is
misplaced and mis-interpreted by the learned
counsel for the respondents inasmuch as no final
order regarding "retirement benefit" or "pension
order" has been sanctioned in terms of the said
Rule 69 (2). The said Rule 69(2) pre-supposes
passing of a final order for retirement benefits.
Since no final order has been passed in terms of
Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules and only
11
OA No. 3210/2018
Provisional Pension Order has been passed,
therefore, no adjustment can take place.
5.8 Reliance placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Wazir Chand vs. Union of India,
(2001) 6 SCC 596 wherein the facts of the case are
entirely different to the facts of the present case, as
the applicant therein was a retired employee who
continuously occupied the Government quarter
unauthorizedly and he was liable to pay penal rent
and balance amount of the gratuity was paid to
him. As in the present case, the penalty of
withholding of pension in full was imposed and the
only order which is also sub-judice before the
Hon'ble High Court in aforesaid writ petition
No.9833/2015 is still pending. The facts of the
present case are entirely different.