RAJ MANI YADAV vs NORTHERN RAILWAY

Reserved on 13.10.2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD

th
Dated: This the 16 day of October 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Original Application No. 330/00206 of 2022

Raj Mani Yadav a/a 62 years, S/o Late Bairagi Yadav (retired on the post
of Tech. Carpenter – II, Ticket No. 754A), Northern Railway, (C & W
Workshop, Alambagh, Lucknow, presently residing at Village
Bharathari, Post Office Hata Buzurg, Police Station Uruwa, District
Gorakhpur.
...........Applicant.
By Advocate: Shri Tarkeshwar Mishra

Versus

1. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern
Railway, New Delhi

2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj,
Lucknow.

3. Chief Workshop Manager, (C&W Workshop) Northern
Railway, Alambagh, Lucknow.

..........Respondents.

MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
By Advocate: Shri S.C. Mishra
O R D E R
The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19
of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
“(i) Το set the aside impugned order dated 19.11.2021 passed by respondent
no.3, Chief Workshop Manager, (C&W Workshop) Railway, Alambagh,
Lucknow. Northern
(ii) To issue an order directing the respondent no.3/competent authority to
consider the claim of the applicant and pay arrear of salary during
suspension period from 23.10.1991 to 19.10.1995 and 04.08.2008 to
12.11.2009, MACP and gratuity to the petitioner.
(iii) Issue any order suitable or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case of applicant.
(iv) To award costs of this application to the applicant”.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

2

The applicant was appointed as Khalasi in the Northern Railway
on 11.01.1984 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Tech.
Carpenter-II. He retired on 31.01.2020. In connection with Case Crime
No. 182 of 1991 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC, he remained
under suspension from 23.10.1991 to 20.10.1995. He was reinstated on
21.10.1995 and continued in service until his conviction by the trial court
on 04.08.2008. Thereafter, the Hon’ble High Court suspended the
execution of his sentence and granted him bail. He was reinstated on
13.11.2009 and continued in service until retirement. His representation
seeking arrears of salary for the suspension periods, MACP and gratuity
was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 19.11.2021.
Hence, the present O.A. has been filed challenging the said order.
3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit opposing the
applicant’s claim. They submit that the applicant was convicted and
sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- vide judgment
dated 04.08.2008. Although the Hon’ble High Court granted him bail
and suspended the execution of the sentence during the pendency of
Criminal Appeal No. 5194 of 2008, the conviction remained in force.
Relying upon Rule 10(1)(c) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules,
1993, and the Railway Board’s letter dated 06.06.1994, the respondents
contend that the claim for gratuity and related benefits can be considered
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
after the final decision in the criminal appeal. They state that the
impugned order dated 19.11.2021 was passed in accordance with the
applicable rules and instructions and pray for dismissal of the O.A.
4. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant, in which
the facts stated in the Original Application have been reiterated and the
contents of the counter affidavit have been denied. Nothing new has been
stated in the rejoinder affidavit.
5 . I have heard Shri Tarkeshwar Mishra, learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri S.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents and
perused the record.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the
impugned order dated 19.11.2021 has been passed illegally and without

3

proper consideration of the applicant’s claim. It is submitted that the
applicant was appointed in the Railway service on 11.01.1984 and
continued to serve the department until his retirement on 31.01.2020.
During his service, he remained under suspension for the periods from
23.10.1991 to 19.10.1995 and from 04.08.2008 to 12.11.2009. He was
reinstated in service after being released on bail and thereafter continued
to perform his duties until his retirement. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submitted that, although the applicant was convicted by
the trial court vide judgment and order dated 04.08.2008, he challenged
the said judgment before the Hon’ble High Court by filing Criminal
Appeal No. 5194 of 2008. During the pendency of the appeal, the
Hon’ble High Court suspended the execution of the sentence and granted
bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted
that the applicant’s claim for arrears of salary for the suspension periods,
grant of MACP and payment of gratuity has not been properly
considered by the competent authority. The applicant had submitted a
representation dated 06.03.2021 and this Tribunal, vide order dated
10.09.2021 passed in O.A. No. 330/00686/2021, directed the competent
authority to decide the representation by passing a reasoned and speaking
order. It is also contended that the mere pendency of a criminal appeal
should not result in the denial of all the service and retirement benefits
MANISH KUMAR
claimed by the applicant without examining the applicable rules
SRIVASTAVA
governing each benefit. The applicant has a right to have his claim
considered in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions.
Therefore, prayer was made to allow the original application and set
aside the impugned order dated 19.11.2021 and the respondents be
directed to consider and release the admissible arrears of salary, MACP
and gratuity to the applicant in accordance with law. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon following case
laws:-
(i) Hari Om Vs. Union of India and others decided in OA No. 641 of 2022 on
20.08.2026 by Allahabad CAT;
(ii) Sharda Prasad Vs. Union of India and others decided in OA No. 100/2018
on 26.04.2018 by the Lucknow Bench of CAT.

4

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, opposes
the claim of the applicant and submits that the impugned order dated
19.11.2021 has been passed in accordance with the applicable rules and
instructions. It is submitted that the applicant was convicted and
sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under
Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge
(FTC-III), Gorakhpur, vide judgment and order dated 04.08.2008 passed
in Sessions Trial No. 167 of 1994. Learned counsel for the respondents
further submitted that the applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 5194 of
2008 before the Hon’ble High Court and was granted bail during the
pendency of the appeal. However, the grant of bail and suspension of the
execution of the sentence do not amount to setting aside the conviction.
Unless the conviction is set aside by the appellate court, it continues to
remain in force in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the respondents
placed reliance upon Rule 10(1)(c) of the Railway Services (Pension)
Rules, 1993, and the Railway Board’s letter dated 06.06.1994, circulated
vide NRPS No. 10889. It is submitted that under the aforesaid provisions
and instructions, the claim for gratuity and other related service benefits
cannot be decided without considering the effect of the pending criminal
proceedings. According to the respondents, the decision regarding
release of gratuity and other admissible benefits can be taken after the
MANISH KUMAR
final decision in the criminal appeal. It is further submitted that the
SRIVASTAVA
applicant’s claim for arrears of salary during the suspension periods and
for MACP also cannot be accepted merely on the ground that he was
reinstated in service or the execution of his sentence was suspended. The
admissibility of these benefits has to be examined in accordance with the
applicable service rules and the circumstances of the case. Learned
counsel for the respondents further contended that the competent
authority considered the relevant rules and instructions and rejected the
applicant’s representation vide the impugned order dated 19.11.2021.
The said order does not suffer from any illegality or procedural
irregularity warranting interference by this Tribunal. Accordingly,
learned counsel for the respondents prays that the Original Application
be dismissed.

5

8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the
parties and perused the record. The applicant has claimed arrears of
salary for two suspension periods, MACP and gratuity. These claims
require separate consideration under the applicable rules.
9. It is not disputed that the applicant was convicted and sentenced to
life imprisonment by the trial court on 04.08.2008. His criminal appeal is
pending before the Hon’ble High Court, which suspended the execution
of the sentence and granted him bail. However, suspension of the
sentence does not, by itself, set aside the conviction.
10. The main question for consideration is whether the respondents
were justified in rejecting all the claims of the applicant on the ground
that the criminal appeal against his conviction is pending before the
Hon'ble High Court. It is clarified at this stage that no disciplinary
proceeding has been initiated against the applicant. However, release of
retiral benefits and pension depends on good conduct of the employee
concerned.
11. As far as release of gratuity to the applicant, the respondents have
relied upon Rule 10(1)(c) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993,
and the Railway Board's letter dated 06.06.1994, circulated vide NRPS
No. 10889. Rule 10(1)(c) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993,
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
as applicable to the impugned order, provides as follows:
“No gratuity shall be paid to the railway 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 the provisions of
the penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii), (iii-a) and (iv) of Rule 6 of the said rules,
the payment of gratuity shall be authorised to be paid to the railway servant”
The aforesaid Rule, therefore, prohibits payment of gratuity until
the conclusion of the relevant departmental or judicial proceedings and
the passing of final orders thereon. The Rule also contains a specific
exception relating to certain departmental proceedings initiated under the
Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. That exception
does not appear to be applicable to the present case, which concerns a
criminal prosecution and a conviction by the trial court.

6

12. In Union of India v. Sukumar Maity , decided by the Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court on 31.08.2016 in WPCT No. 168 of 2016 , the
Hon’ble High Court held as under:-
“Records reveal that before ordering for withholding of the respondent's gratuity,
he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. It is well settled that if a decision
of a body or authority affects individual rights or interests, it would be unfair for
the body or authority not to have allowed a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Gratuity and the benefits of commutation of pension are not any bounty payable
on the sweet will and pleasure of the petitioners and the right of an employee to
receive it is a right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution and without
issuance of any reasoned order upon due application of mind to the facts involved,
the said benefits could not have been withheld”.
Thus, case of Sukumar Maity (supra) supports the proposition that
gratuity may be withheld in accordance with the rule while the relevant
judicial proceedings remain pending.
13. Similarly, in Mohan Lal Balotia v. Ministry of Railways ,
decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench on
01.03.2019 in OA 060/ 01046/2016 , the Tribunal considered the claim of
a railway employee who had been convicted by a criminal court and
whose appeal was pending before the Hon’ble High Court. The Tribunal
applied Rule 10 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, in
relation to withholding gratuity during the pendency of the criminal
appeal. The aforesaid decisions support the respondents' contention that
gratuity cannot be released contrary to the express prohibition contained
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
in Rule 10(1)(c) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
14. In Hari Om v. Union of India (supra) , the Tribunal observed
that, although Rule 10 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993,
provides for withholding of gratuity during the pendency of judicial
proceedings, the nature of the criminal cases was also relevant. The
pending cases in that matter concerned theft and the Gangster Act and
were not connected with the employee’s official duties. There was also
no evidence that the delay in those proceedings was attributable to the
employee. The Tribunal allowed the O.A., set aside the impugned order
dated 22.04.2022 and directed the respondents to release DCRG,
commutation of pension, regular pension and other admissible retirement
benefits.

7

15. Similarly, in Sharda Prasad v. Union of India (supra) , the
Tribunal observed that, in the facts of that case, the pendency of criminal
proceedings relating to matters unconnected with the employee’s official
duties could not be used to deny his legitimate retirement benefits.
Relying upon State of U.P. v. Dhirendra Pal Singh , (2017) 1 SCC 49,
and Radhey Shyam Shukla v. State of U.P. & Others , 2010 (1) LLJ 480,
the Tribunal allowed the O.A. and directed payment of gratuity, final
pension and commutation of pension in accordance with the rules within
three months.
issue in analogues provision of Rules came up for
16. Similar
consideration before the Full Bench of Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad in
the case of Shivgopal and others Vs. State of U.P and 4 others – 2019
Law Suit (All) 867 , it has been observed that pension and gratuity are
earned service benefits and cannot be withheld without authority of law.
However, where departmental or judicial proceedings are pending
against a retired government servant, the applicable statutory rules permit
provisional pension, while death-cum-retirement gratuity may be
withheld until conclusion of the proceedings and passing of the final
order by the competent authority.
17. In view of the above and having regard to Rule 10(1)(c) of the
MANISH KUMAR
Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, as applicable to the impugned
SRIVASTAVA
order, this Tribunal finds no ground to direct immediate release of
gratuity while the relevant judicial proceedings remain pending. The
applicant’s claim for immediate release of gratuity is, therefore,
rejected at this stage. It is, however, clarified that the applicant’s
entitlement to gratuity shall remain subject to the applicable rules and
the final outcome of the judicial proceedings. The respondents shall
deal with the matter further in accordance with the rules once the
proceedings conclude and the final orders are passed.
18. As regards arrears of salary for the suspension periods from
23.10.1991 to 19.10.1995 and 04.08.2008 to 12.11.2009 is concerned,
Rule 10(1)(c) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 does not
determine the applicant’s entitlement. The claim is required to be

8

examined under the applicable provisions governing suspension-period
pay, including Fundamental Rule 54-B, as applicable to Railway
servants. In Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. M.
Prabhakar Rao , (2011) 8 SCC 155 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
as under:-
“ 11. Yet, the Tribunal has found fault with the order dated 17.11.2008 of the
competent authority and has held that the suspension of the respondent was
unjustified. The reasons given by the Tribunal in its order are that the prosecution
has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt about the demand and
acceptance of the bribe and the criminal court has acquitted the respondent and it
was open for the authorities to proceed against the respondent departmentally, but
no such departmental proceedings were initiated to prove the misconduct of the
respondent. The approach of the Tribunal, in our considered opinion, was not
correct. Sub-rule (3) of F.R. 54-B does not state that in case of acquittal in a
criminal proceedings the employee is entitled to his salary and allowances for the
period of suspension. Sub-rule (3) of F.R. 54-B also does not state that in such
case of acquittal the employee would be entitled to his salary and allowances for
the period of suspension unless the charge of misconduct against him is proved in
the disciplinary proceedings. Sub-rule (3) of F.R. 54-B vests power in the
competent authority to order that the employee will be paid the full pay and
allowances for the period of suspension if he is of the opinion that the suspension
of the employee was wholly unjustified. Hence, even where the employee is
acquitted of the charges in the criminal trial for lack of evidence or otherwise, it is
for the competent authority to form its opinion whether the suspension of the
employee was wholly unjustified and so long as such opinion of the competent
authority was a possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the
materials before him, such opinion of the competent authority would not be
interfered by the Tribunal or the Court.
12. In the result, we allow this appeal and set-aside the order of the Tribunal and
the impugned order of the High Court and dismiss the original application filed by
the respondent before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs”.
The case in. M. Prabhakar Rao (supra) supports the principle that
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
reinstatement does not automatically entitle an employee to full salary
for the suspension period. The competent authority must determine the
admissible pay and allowances in accordance with the applicable rules
and pass a reasoned order. However, the said case concerned an
employee who had been acquitted, whereas the applicant in the present
case was convicted by the trial court and his criminal appeal is pending.
Therefore, the facts are distinguishable, though the principle governing
determination of suspension-period pay remains relevant.regarding
consideration of the same.
19. The applicant’s claim for MACP is also required to be examined
independently under the applicable MACP Scheme and Railway Board
instructions. Rule 10(1)(c) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules,
1993 deals with gratuity and cannot, by itself, decide the applicant’s

9

entitlement to MACP. The competent authority must examine his
qualifying service, previous financial upgradations and eligibility under
the relevant instructions.
20. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the Original
Application is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 19.11.2021 is
set aside to the extent that it rejects the applicant’s claims for salary
arrears for the suspension periods and MACP without proper
consideration under the applicable rules and instructions. The competent
authority is directed to reconsider both claims and pass a reasoned and
speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order. The claim for immediate release of gratuity is rejected
at this stage, subject to the applicable rules and the outcome of the
pending judicial proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. All
associated MAs, if any, stand disposed of.

( JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII )
Member (J)

Manish

MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA