Union Of India & Ors. vs Sh. Jamuna Dass

$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010117132021
+ W.P.(C) 2936/2021, CM APPL. 8830/2021
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC
with Mr. Lakshay Kumar and Ms. Maanya
Saxena, Advs.

versus

SH. JAMUNA DASS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Prem Chand and Mr.
Chander Bhan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 31.08.2026

The matter is being taken up today as 27 August 2026 was
declared as a holiday.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition assails the judgment dated 26 October 2018
1
in OA 3437/2017.
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal

2. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has allowed the OA.

3. We have heard Mr. Lakshay Kumar, learned Counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Prem Chand, learned Counsel for the respondent.

1
“Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2936/2021 Page 1 of 7

Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:05.09.2026
10:19:02

4. The issue in controversy is limited. It merely involves

application of Rule 69(1)(c) of the Central Civil Services (Pension)
2
Rules, 1972
.

The respondent was working as Tax Assistant in the Office of
5.
the Commissioner of Income Tax. While he was in service, criminal
proceedings were instituted against him. The proceedings culminated
in an order of conviction and sentence dated 23 January 2012 passed
by the learned Special Judge, CBI. Prior thereto, the respondent
superannuated on 31 December 2011.

6. The respondent challenged the decision of the learned Special
Judge before this Court by means of Criminal Appeal 344/2012,
which admittedly is still pending before this Court. In the said
Criminal Appeal, by order dated 24 July 2012 passed in Criminal MB
685/2012, this Court suspended the order of sentence of the
respondent dated 23 January 2012.

The respondent’s contention was that the petitioner had illegally
7.
withheld the gratuity and leave encashment of the respondent.

8. It is not in dispute that the grievance with respect to leave
encashment does not survive as the leave encashment has been
released to the respondent.

9. The only issue, for consideration, is, therefore, whether the

2
“the Pension Rules” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2936/2021 Page 2 of 7

Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:05.09.2026
10:19:02

respondent was entitled to be released gratuity.

10. Before the Tribunal, as well as before this Court, the petitioners

places reliance on Rule 69(1)(c) of the Pension Rules, which reads as
under:

(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.”

The Tribunal has held that, as no disciplinary proceedings had
11.
been instituted against the respondent, and more than four years have
passed since the respondent superannuated, no disciplinary
proceedings could be instituted any further in view of the proscription
3
contained in Rule 9(2)(b)
of the Pension Rules, which prohibits
initiation of disciplinary proceedings, against a retired Government
servant, in respect of an event which took place more than four years
prior to such initiation.

12. We may reproduce, for ready reference, paras 8, 10 and 11 of

the judgment of the Tribunal, thus:

3
(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service,
whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment, -
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President,
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such
institution, and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the President may direct and in
accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from
service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2936/2021 Page 3 of 7

Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:05.09.2026
10:19:02

“8. The fact that though the applicant had been convicted by
the CBI (Special Court) and in the appeal Hon'ble High Court has
not set aside the conviction but, suspended the sentence,
disciplinary proceedings have yet not been initiated. Therefore, as
per Rule 9.2(b) since more than 4 years have elapsed since his
retirement, and disciplinary proceedings are yet to be initiated, no
reason has been assigned for non initiation of the disciplinary
proceedings so far., departmental proceedings cannot now be
instituted.

*

10. In the present matter, the applicant was not suspended at the
time of reaching the age of retirement and no disciplinary
proceedings are pending against him, despite the fact that the
criminal case has been decided against him and the conviction has
not been stayed by any higher Court and there is no claim from the
employer for the recovery of money. In fact, the LPC dated
23.12.2011 shows no outstanding dues.

11. Keeping in mind the above and since no disciplinary
proceedings have been initiated against the applicant and no reason
given for the same, despite the fact that almost seven years have
passed since the retirement of the applicant, on reaching the age of
retirement, the employer cannot now withheld the leave
encashment and gratuity. The respondents are directed to make
payment of leave encashment and gratuity due to the applicant. No
interest will be payable thereon.”

Mr. Lakshay Kumar points out that the Tribunal has not noticed
13.
the fact that Rule 69(1)(c) applies not merely in the case of pending
departmental proceedings but also in the case of pending judicial
proceedings. Even though the proceedings before the learned Special
Judge had come to an end, Criminal Appeal 344/2012, preferred
thereagainst by the respondent, is still pending before this Court. Mr.
Lakshay Kumar submits that it is not possible, therefore, to release the
gratuity of the respondent in view of the proscription contained in
Rule 69(1)(c) of the Pension Rules.

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2936/2021 Page 4 of 7

Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:05.09.2026
10:19:02

14. Besides submitting that the criminal proceedings have come to

an end with the passing of the judgment and sentence by the learned
Special Judge, Mr. Prem Chand, learned Counsel for the respondent is
unable to advance any further submission with respect to Rule
69(1)(c) of the Pension Rules.

15. Mr. Lakshay Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners has
also drawn our attention to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in
Bikram Chand Rana v. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport
4
Corporation
, which also involves application of Rule 69(1)(c) of the
Pension Rules. Paras 12 and 13 of the said decision read, thus:

“12. Such a submission totally misapprehends the nature of the
Rule. As the learned Single Judge had rightly noted at the first
instance, Rule 69(1)(c) operates as an ‘embargo’ or a statutory bar,
not as an enabling provision. The use of the ordinary disjunctive
“or” expands the scope of this bar, indicating that gratuity shall not
be paid so long as either departmental or judicial proceedings are
pending. The appellant places reliance on the case of Babu
5
Manmohan Das Shah v. Bishun Das
, specifically that:

“…..The ordinary rule of construction is that a provision of
a statute must be construed in accordance with the language
used therein unless there are compelling reasons, such as,
where a literal construction would reduce the provision to
absurdity or prevent the manifest intention of the legislature
from being carried out. There is no reason why the word
“or” should be construed otherwise than in its ordinary
meaning. …..”

13. Applying the aforesaid reasoning, it is the construction
advanced by the appellant that would in fact yield an anomalous
result. Rule 69(1)(c) of the 1972 Rules has a wide import and
operates in respect of any proceeding that may be pending against
an employee at the time of retirement; indeed, the breadth of the
provision reflects its protective character . If the appellant's
interpretation were accepted, an employee could contend that once

4
2026 SCC OnLine SC 535
5
1966 SCC OnLine SC 40
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2936/2021 Page 5 of 7

Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:05.09.2026
10:19:02

any one set of proceedings against him/her stands concluded, the
embargo stands lifted and gratuity must be released. This would
altogether defeat the purpose of the provision, which is to
safeguard the financial interests of the State.”
(Emphasis supplied)



16. The issue in controversy is no longer res integra in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Bikram Chand Rana . Even
otherwise, it is clear from Rule 69(1)(c) of the Pension Rules that the
proscription against release of gratuity to an employee, who is facing
judicial proceedings would continue till the judicial proceedings come
to an end.

17. The expression “judicial proceedings”, indisputably, would also

include Criminal Appeal 344/2012 filed by the respondent before this
Court, which continues to remain pending.

The Tribunal has, therefore, erred in restricting its consideration
18.
to the fact that no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against
the respondent, ignoring the fact that the judicial proceedings
continued to remain pending against him.

19. We, therefore, find no error in the decision of the petitioner to
withhold the respondent’s gratuity so long as the judicial proceedings
in the form of Criminal Appeal 344/2012 continue to remain pending
before this Court.

20. Needless to say, once the criminal appeal is disposed of one

way or the other, the respondent’s claim for gratuity would revive.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2936/2021 Page 6 of 7

Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:05.09.2026
10:19:02

21. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain the

impugned judgment of the Tribunal, which is therefore quashed and
set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid
terms with no orders as to costs.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J

VINOD KUMAR, J

AUGUST 31, 2026/ dd
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2936/2021 Page 7 of 7

Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:05.09.2026
10:19:02