NARESH KUMAR SOOD vs NORTHERN RAILWAY

1 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CHANDIGARH BENCH

Reserved on : 10.07.2026
Pronounced on : 01.09.2026

OA No. 060/478/2023

HON’BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)


Naresh Kumar Sood, Aged 62 years S/O Late Shri Narinder Nath
Sood, Chief Enquiry cum Reservation Supervisor (CERS) (Retired),
Group „C‟ Northern Railway, Dhandari Kalan, now resident of
House No. B IV/1231, Haveli Soodan, Dareshi Road, Ludhiana-
141008.

……… Applicant

(By Advocate : Sh. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Sh.
Abhimanyu Rana)

VERSUS

1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ferozepur.
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Firozpur.
4. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway,
Ferozepur.
5. Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Northern Railway,
Firozpur (Enquiry Officer).

…Respondents


(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC with Sh. Pankaj
Khurana)

2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

2 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

O R D E R

Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):

1. The present Original Application has been filed under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
against the following:-
(i) Against Order No.729-E/28/2102/PEN dated
08.09.2022, issued by Respondent No.3, copy
attached as Annexure A-1, whereby representation
applicant for release of the of DCRG, of commutation
value pension and regular pension has been rejected
on the ground that Criminal Case No. 24/2021 dated
18.01.2021 under Section 143 of Railway Act,
registered at RPF Post, Ludhiana is still under trial in
the court of Ld. CJM, Ludhiana and quashing thereof.
(ii) Against Order dated 27.02.2023 passed by
Respondent No.3, whereby in response to complaint
submitted by the applicant on CPGRAM dated
12.02.2023, he was intimated that DCRG has been
withheld till final outcome of the case No.24/2021 U/S
143 Railway Act dated 18.01.2021 pending in the
court of CJM, Ludhiana, copy attached as Annexure A-
2, alongwith order dated 02.03.2023 vide which his
complaint on CPGRAM was closed and order dated
01.04.2023 vide which his appeal was closed, copy
attached as Annexure A-3 and quashing thereof.
2. By filing the present Original Application, the
applicant has sought the following relief(s):-
(i) Quash Order No. 729-E/28/2102/PEN dated
08.09.2022, issued by Respondent No.3, copy
attached as Annexure A-1, whereby representation of
the applicant for release of DCRG, commutation value
of pension and regular pension has been rejected on
the ground that Criminal Case No. 24/2021 dated
18.01.2021 under Section 143 of Railway Act,
registered at RPF Post, Ludhiana is still under trial in
the court of Ld. CJM, Ludhiana.
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

3 (OA No. 060/478/2023)


(ii) Quash Order dated 27.02.2023 passed by Respondent
No.3, whereby in response complaint submitted by
the applicant on CPGRAM dated 12.02.2023, he was
intimated that DCRG has been withheld till final
outcome of the case No.24/2021 U/S 143 Railway Act
dated 18.01.2021 pending in the court of CJM,
Ludhiana, copy attached as Annexure A-2, alongwith
order dated 02.03.2023 vide which his complaint on
CPGRAM was closed and order dated 01.04.2023 vide
which his appeal was closed, copy attached as
Annexure A-3.
(iii) For issuance of directions to the respondents to
release Gratuity, Commutation value of pension and
regular pension to the applicant from due date
alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date
amount became due till actual date of payment as on
the date of retirement only departmental case arising
out of SF-5 dated 23.08.2021 was pending which was
dropped on 26.07.2022 and in a criminal case
pending against him no charge has been framed till
date much less on the date of retirement i.e. to
31.08.2021.Respondents may be directed produce
complete record of the case for kind perusal of this
Hon'ble Tribunal.

3. The facts as projected by the applicant in the Original
Application are that the applicant initially joined the Railway
Administration as Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk on
20.08.1986 at Northern Railway, Jammu . He was promoted as
Head Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk in 1998 and thereafter as
Chief Enquiry-cum-Reservation Supervisor w.e.f. 01.11.2003.
He was lastly posted at Dhandari Kalan and retired from service
on 31.08.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation.
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

4 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

4. That while posted at Dhandari Kalan, the applicant was falsely
implicated in FIR No.24 of 2021 under Section 143 of the
Railway Act, registered by RPF, Ludhiana, and was arrested
from his residence at about 7:30 P.M. on 19.01.2021. He was
granted bail by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate on 20.01.2021. No
ticket or other incriminating material was recovered from him,
except a truncated WhatsApp message relating to the year
2019. A copy of Section 143 of the Railway Act is annexed as
Annexure A-3A .
5. That the applicant was placed under suspension w.e.f.
19.01.2021 vide order dated 22.01.2021, which was revoked on
11.03.2021. Copies of the suspension and revocation orders are
annexed as Annexures A-4 and A-5 . Meanwhile, the RPF
presented a complaint before the Ld. C.J.M., Ludhiana on
20.07.2021; however, no charge was framed against the
applicant either before his retirement on 31.08.2021 or
thereafter.
6. That the applicant was also served with departmental charge-
sheet SF-5 dated 23.08.2021, alleging acceptance of ₹400/- for
issuing tickets out of turn and unauthorized issuance of PRS
tickets, in violation of Rule 3.1(i), (ii) & (iii) of the Railway
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. A copy of the charge-sheet is
annexed as Annexure A-6 . After due enquiry and
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

5 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

consideration of the applicant‟s defence/representation dated
25.07.2022, the competent authority dropped all the charges
vide order dated 26.07.2022 , thereby completely exonerating
the applicant. Copy thereof is annexed as Annexure A-7 .
7. That thereafter, vide order dated 06.09.2022, the respondents
treated the entire suspension period from 19.01.2021 to
11.03.2021 as duty and released full pay and allowances for the
said period. Copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure A-
8 . Thus, the departmental proceedings stood finally concluded
in favour of the applicant, whereas in the criminal case under
Section 143 of the Railway Act, no charge has been framed
against him till date.
8. That despite his exoneration in the departmental proceedings
and absence of any charge in the criminal case, the applicant‟s
retiral benefits have been illegally withheld. At the time of
retirement, he was released GPF, GIS and leave encashment,
but only provisional pension was sanctioned, while DCRG,
regular pension and commutation of pension were withheld. The
applicant submitted representation dated 18.08.2022 seeking
release of the retiral benefits, but the same was rejected by the
respondents on the ground of pendency of the criminal case
( Annexure A-1 ). He thereafter pursued the matter through
CPGRAMS, including complaint dated 12.02.2023 and
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

6 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

subsequent appeal, but without any effective relief. Copies of
the relevant CPGRAMS orders/complaints are annexed as
Annexures A-2 and A-3 .
9. That the continued withholding of the applicant‟s retiral benefits
is legally unsustainable, particularly when the departmental
proceedings have been dropped and no charge has been
framed in the criminal case. The applicant relies, inter alia,
upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of
India v. K.V. Jankiraman , JT 1991 (3) SC 527, wherein the
Supreme Court held that disciplinary/criminal proceedings are
treated as pending for the relevant purpose only after issuance
of the charge-memo/charge-sheet. The applicant further relies
upon the decisions in Amrik Singh Bhatti v. UOI (O.A. No.
60/535/2018, decided on 14.11.2019), Kamlesh
Chauhan v. UOI (O.A. No. 060/155/2019, decided on
18.02.2021), and Rajendran T.G., IAS (Retd.) v. State of
Kerala (O.A. No.436/2011, decided on 17.08.2021 ),
besides the Government instructions dated 11.07.1979,
10.01.1983 and 25.08.1994. Copies of the relevant
Rules/instructions and judgments are annexed as Annexures
A-10 to A-13 . The applicant, being a senior citizen and having
been deprived of his legitimate retiral dues for no fault of his, is
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

7 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

consequently entitled to release of all withheld retiral benefits
along with admissible interest.
10. The respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by
filing a reply. It is submitted in the reply that Sh. Naresh
Kumar Sood, CRS/DDL, retired on superannuation on
31.08.2021. At the time of retirement, SF-5 chargesheet had
been issued by Sr. DCM/FZR and RPF Case/FIR No. 24/2021
dated 03.01.2021 was pending before the Hon‟ble CJM Court,
Ludhiana, concerning alleged irregularities/illegal PRS ticketing.
Although the departmental SF-5 charges were subsequently
dropped vide office letter No. MC/51001/Resv./2021 (L-1)
dated 26.07.2022 , the criminal/judicial proceedings remain
sub judice . Accordingly, relying upon Indian Railway Pension
Manual, 1993, Rule 10(c) (Annexure R-2) , the reply states
that only provisional pension is payable during pendency of
judicial proceedings and the question of DCRG/gratuity is to
be decided after the outcome of the court case. The following
benefits have already been released: PF ₹1,15,030/- (AB No.
172 dated 31.08.2021), LE ₹9,79,200/- (AB No. 241 dated
22.10.2021), GIS ₹56,438/- (AB No. 183 dated 09.09.2021),
revised LE ₹22,950/- (AB No. 023 dated 22.04.2022), and
provisional pension ₹38,250/- per month under PPO No.
20217030400503 dated 27.08.2021.
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

8 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

11. The reply further states that an RPF check conducted by SI
Sukhdip Singh, RPF/LDH on 19.01.2021 revealed alleged
irregularities in PRS ticketing, including issuance of tickets on
WhatsApp requests of an unauthorised agent, alleged receipt of
Rs. 400/- commission per ticket , and allotment of priority
positions by overlooking the queue; WhatsApp records,
including the ticket/PNR details dated 10.09.2020, were relied
upon. The matter was investigated by RPF, Ludhiana and
FIR/Case No. 24/2021 is pending before the Hon‟ble CJM Court,
Ludhiana ( Annexure R-1 ). In the paragraph-wise reply, the
respondents repeatedly submit that the matter is sub judice,
certain averments are matters of record, and several
allegations are denied for want of knowledge; consequently, the
applicant is stated to be not entitled to the relief claimed,
particularly regarding DCRG, until conclusion of the judicial
proceedings. The reply ultimately prays that the application be
dismissed as devoid of merits, relying principally upon
Annexure R-1 (CJM Court case/FIR No. 24/2021) and
Annexure R-2 (applicable pension rule) .
12. The applicant has filed a rejoinder therein it has been submitted
that his retirement on superannuation on 31.08.2021, issuance
of SF-5, pendency of the criminal case, withholding of
gratuity/DCRG and release of other retiral benefits are matters
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

9 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

of record. However, it is contended that no charge has been
framed by the Criminal Court, either on the date of retirement
or till date , and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in K.V. Jankiraman , the criminal
proceedings cannot be treated as pending so as to justify
withholding of retiral benefits. The applicant further submits
that no financial loss has been caused to the Department and
no recovery is due from him; hence, mere pendency of the
criminal case cannot be a ground for withholding his
gratuity/DCRG or other retirement benefits.
13. On merits, the applicant denies the adverse submissions of the
respondents and reiterates the averments and grounds taken in
the O.A. It is further submitted that the respondents have failed
to give a proper/parawise reply to the applicant‟s contentions
and, relying upon BSNL v. Abhishek Shukla, 2009 (3) SCT
318 (SC) , the applicant contends that such non-specific reply
amounts to admission of the averments. The applicant
maintains that there are valid and legal grounds for grant of the
reliefs sought and, accordingly, prays that the, including release
of the withheld retiral benefits.
14. The respondents have filed a Supplementary Affidavit dated
02.07.2024 whereby it has been submitted that pursuant to the
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

10 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

Hon‟ble Court‟s order dated 05.01.2024, the applicant‟s
contention regarding dropping of disciplinary charges and non-
framing of charges in the criminal case has been examined, and
as per information received from the Senior Divisional Security
Commissioner/RPF/FZR, Case Crime No. 24/2021 under Section
143 of the Railway Act was registered at RPF Post Ludhiana
against six persons, including the applicant, for illegal
business/sale of railway tickets; after enquiry, all were found
guilty and the case was submitted before the Ld. CJM,
Ludhiana, where it is still under trial. The respondents further
rely upon Para 10(1)(C) of the Railway Pension Manual, 1993,
stating that gratuity cannot be paid to a railway servant until
conclusion of the departmental/judicial proceedings and final
order of the competent court; accordingly, the applicant‟s
gratuity has been withheld as per the applicable rules.
15. The respondents, in compliance with the order dated
05.01.2024, have filed the supplementary affidavit stating that
although the departmental charges under SF-5 were dropped
by Sr. DCM/FZR vide letter dated 26.07.2022, the criminal case
Crime Case No. 24/2021 under Section 143 of the Railway Act,
registered at RPF Post Ludhiana against six persons including
the applicant, continues to be pending before the CJM,
Ludhiana; the status of the case was confirmed by Senior
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

11 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

Divisional Security Commissioner/RPF/FZR vide letter No. 59-
RPF/R.A-01/FZR/2024 dated 24.05.2024 , enclosed as
Annexure SA-1 . The applicant retired on superannuation on
31.08.2021, and at the time of retirement the said
departmental and judicial proceedings were pending;
accordingly, relying upon Para 10(1)(C) of the Railway Pension
Manual, 1993, the respondents withheld gratuity until
conclusion of the proceedings and issuance of final orders, with
the relevant rule enclosed as Annexure SA-2 . Although the
departmental proceedings were dropped on 26.07.2022, the
criminal case remained pending, and vide order dated
01.08.2024, the co-accused were convicted under Section 143
of the Railway Act, while the matter qua the applicant was
adjourned for pre-charge evidence; the said order is enclosed
as Annexure SA-3 . The respondents therefore reiterate that,
in terms of Para 10(1)(C) of the Railway Pension Manual, 1993,
gratuity cannot be released until the final decision of the CJM
Court, Ludhiana, and the applicant‟s payment has accordingly
been withheld under the applicable rules, with the relevant
provision enclosed as Annexure SA-4 .
16. The applicant rebutted to the above Supplementary Affidavit. It
is submitted that at the time of retirement of the applicant,
although disciplinary and criminal proceedings were pending,
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

12 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

the disciplinary proceedings in respect of SF-5 were
subsequently dropped by the Sr. DCM, FZR vide order dated
26.07.2022, as admitted by the respondents in their affidavit
dated 22.08.2024, while no charge has been framed against the
applicant in the criminal proceedings till date, as evident from
the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the Ld. CJM, Ludhiana,
whereby the matter was fixed for 24.10.2024 for pre-charge
evidence; therefore, the respondents cannot legally withhold
the retiral benefits, including DCRG, of the applicant. The
contents of para No. 4 are wrong and denied, as the
respondents have wrongly interpreted Rule 10(1)(C) of the
Railway Pension Manual; pensionary benefits cannot be
withheld merely on the basis of pending proceedings unless a
charge-sheet in departmental proceedings has been sustained
or a charge has been framed by the Criminal Court. It is the
mandate of law and the judgments of the Hon‟ble Courts which
prevail over administrative instructions, and in view of the
judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs.
K.V. Jankiraman , JT 1991 (3) 527, the respondents cannot
withhold the gratuity/DCRG of the applicant. Accordingly, the
respondents are liable to release the DCRG/retiral benefits of
the applicant along with interest, as prayed for.
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

13 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

17. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have
carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
18. The learned counsel for the applicant argued as follows:-
(i) That the departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant vide SF-
5 dated 23.08.2021 were dropped by the competent authority vide order
dated 26.07.2022. Thus, no departmental proceedings remain pending
against the applicant.
(ii) That no charge has been framed against the applicant in Criminal Case No.
24 of 2021 under Section 143 of the Railways Act till date , and the matter
is still at the pre-charge stage. Mere registration of an FIR, filing of a
complaint/challan or pendency of a criminal case cannot, by itself, justify
withholding of retiral benefits.
(iii) That reliance upon Rule 10(c) of the Railway Services (Pension)
Rules/Manual is misconceived . In view of Union of India v. K.V.
Jankiraman , criminal proceedings for the relevant purpose cannot be
treated as pending merely on account of an FIR or complaint; framing of
charges by the competent Criminal Court is material. The said principle
has also been relied upon in Anoop Singh v. State of Haryana .
(iv) That pension and gratuity are valuable statutory and constitutional rights
and cannot be withheld except in accordance with law. Reliance has been
placed upon D.S. Nakara v. Union of India and State of Jharkhand v.
Jitendra Kumar Srivastava , wherein pension/gratuity were recognised
as valuable rights/property protected under Article 300A of the
Constitution.
(v) That the respondents have failed to establish any legal basis for indefinite
withholding of the applicant's retiral dues merely by stating that the
criminal case is “sub judice”. The applicant has neither been convicted nor
even charged, and such indefinite withholding causes serious financial
hardship and amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of his earned benefits.
(vi) That consequently, the impugned orders/communications withholding the
applicant's retiral benefits are legally unsustainable and liable to be
quashed. The respondents may be directed to release the applicant's
gratuity/DCRG, commutation of pension and regular pension from the
respective due dates, along with admissible interest.
19. Whereas the respondents argued that although he retired on
superannuation on 31.08.2021 and the departmental SF-5
chargesheet issued against him was subsequently dropped on
26.07.2022, RPF Case/FIR No. 24/2021 concerning alleged
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

14 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

irregularities in PRS ticketing is still pending before the Hon‟ble
CJM Court, Ludhiana. Relying upon Rule 10(c) of the Indian
Railway Pension Manual, 1993, the respondents contend that
during the pendency of judicial proceedings only provisional
pension is payable and the applicant‟s DCRG/gratuity is liable to
be withheld until finalization of the criminal case. The
respondents have referred to the RPF investigation and
allegations regarding unauthorised ticketing, commission and
priority allotment, and contend that since the matter remains
sub judice, the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed and
the Original Application deserves to be dismissed.
20. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and
have carefully gone through the pleadings and documents
placed on record. The controversy which falls for determination
is whether the respondents were justified in withholding the
applicant‟s DCRG, commutation of pension and regular pension
merely on the ground of pendency of Criminal Case No. 24 of
2021 under Section 143 of the Railways Act, particularly when
the departmental proceedings initiated against him had already
been dropped and no charge had been framed against him by
the competent Criminal Court.
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

15 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

21. It is an admitted position that the applicant retired from service
on 31.08.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation. The
departmental proceedings initiated against him vide SF-5 dated
23.08.2021 were ultimately dropped by the competent
authority vide order dated 26.07.2022. The respondents have
also admitted that the applicant‟s suspension period was
treated as duty and full pay and allowances were released to
him. Thus, no departmental proceeding survives against the
applicant and there is no finding of any misconduct or pecuniary
loss against him in the departmental proceedings.
22. So far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, it is also not
in dispute that although the case was instituted before the
competent Criminal Court, no charge has been framed against
the applicant even till the subsequent dates reflected from the
judicial orders placed on record. The matter has remained at
the stage of pre-charge evidence. It is, therefore, significant
that the applicant has neither been convicted nor has the
Criminal Court, after consideration of the material placed before
it, found sufficient ground to frame a charge against him.
23. The respondents have sought to justify withholding of DCRG
principally on the basis of Para 10(1)(C) of the Railway Pension
Manual, 1993. It is settled that pension and gratuity are not
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

16 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

matters of bounty but constitute valuable rights of a retiring
employee and deprivation thereof must have clear authority of
law. The statutory provision relied upon by the respondents,
therefore, has to be strictly construed and cannot be invoked
mechanically merely because an FIR or criminal case continues
to remain on the records.
24. In the present case, the respondents have proceeded on the
assumption that mere pendency of the criminal case,
irrespective of the stage at which it stands, automatically
authorises indefinite withholding of the applicant‟s gratuity and
other retiral benefits. Such an interpretation, in our considered
opinion, would give an unduly wide meaning to the power of
withholding pensionary benefits and would permit the
respondents to deprive a retired employee of his earned retiral
dues for an indefinite period even where the criminal
prosecution has not progressed to the stage of framing of
charge.
25. The principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union
of India v. K.V. Jankiraman , JT 1991 (3) SC 527 , though
rendered in the context of service benefits, recognises the
importance of the stage at which a disciplinary or criminal
proceeding can legitimately be treated as having crystallised
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

17 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

against an employee. The underlying principle is that mere
suspicion, investigation or initiation of proceedings cannot be
equated with a concluded determination of culpability. In the
present case, the departmental proceedings have admittedly
ended in favour of the applicant and the criminal prosecution
has not even reached the stage of framing of charge against
him.
26. We are conscious that the Railway Pension Rules contain
provisions enabling the competent authority to withhold
gratuity in appropriate cases where departmental or judicial
proceedings, as contemplated under the Rules, are pending.
However, such power is not an unrestricted or absolute power.
The provision has to be applied having regard to its object and
in a manner consistent with the right of a retired employee to
receive his legitimate pensionary dues. The mere description of
a matter as “sub judice” cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient
justification for withholding retiral benefits indefinitely.
27. The facts of the present case are also distinguishable from a
case where the criminal prosecution has progressed to the
stage of framing of charge and the criminal court has found
sufficient ground to proceed against the retired employee. Here,
despite the passage of considerable time, the applicant
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

18 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

continues to remain at the pre-charge stage. More importantly,
the departmental proceedings arising out of substantially
connected allegations have already been dropped. There is
consequently no subsisting departmental finding of guilt or
quantified loss which could justify continued retention of the
applicant‟s gratuity.
28. We are also of the view that the respondents cannot derive an
automatic justification for withholding all retiral benefits merely
from the fact that a criminal case was pending on the date of
retirement. The right to pension and gratuity has to be
determined in accordance with the statutory scheme and the
facts obtaining in the individual case. Where the departmental
proceedings have culminated in favour of the employee and the
criminal proceedings have not resulted even in framing of
charge, continued withholding for an uncertain and indefinite
period would operate harshly and disproportionately against the
retired employee.
29. In these circumstances, we find that the respondents have
failed to demonstrate any subsisting departmental proceeding,
finding of misconduct, quantified pecuniary loss or other specific
legal ground warranting continued withholding of the applicant‟s
DCRG and other retiral dues. The impugned orders dated
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

19 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

08.09.2022 and 27.02.2023, to the extent they proceed solely
on the ground of pendency of Criminal Case No. 24 of 2021,
therefore cannot be sustained in their present form.
30. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned
Order No. 729-E/28/2102/PEN dated 08.09.2022 and the
subsequent communication/order dated 27.02.2023, along with
consequential rejection/closure of the applicant‟s
representations through CPGRAMS, are hereby quashed and set
aside to the extent they deny the applicant‟s retiral benefits
solely on account of pendency of the aforesaid criminal case.
31. The respondents are directed to release the applicant‟s
DCRG/gratuity and other retiral benefits legally admissible to
him, including regular pension and commutation of pension,
subject to verification of the applicable statutory conditions,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
32. As regards interest, the applicant shall be entitled to interest on
the delayed payment of DCRG and other retiral dues at the rate
admissible under the applicable pension rules/instructions from
the date on which the respective amounts became due till the
date of actual payment. The prayer for interest at the rate of
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

20 (OA No. 060/478/2023)

18% per annum is, however, not found justified in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
33. It is clarified that release of the retiral benefits in terms of this
order shall not amount to an expression of opinion on the
merits of Criminal Case No. 24 of 2021, which shall be decided
by the competent Criminal Court independently and strictly in
accordance with law.
34. The Original Application stands allowed in the above terms.
There shall be no order as to costs.


(RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (J)

ND*
2026.09.03 13:13:47+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL