A pending proposal for post-retirement departmental proceedings cannot indefinitely justify withholding retiral dues.

The petitioner, a retired Superintending Engineer of the Public Health Engineering Department, retired on 31 December 2019 after more than 31 years of service. He claimed that he had received only two promotions and had not been granted the third time-bound pay scale, revised benefits under the Seventh Pay Commission, complete pensionary benefits, gratuity, and other retiral dues.

The petitioner contended that the requisite no-objection certificates had been issued and that no departmental enquiry or recovery order was pending against him.

The State disclosed that a show-cause notice had been issued before retirement, but the proceedings were not concluded.

It further stated that approval for initiating departmental proceedings after retirement was being processed under Finance Instruction No. 09/2017; approval from the Public Service Commission was granted on 11 November 2025, while approval of the concerned Minister remained pending.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking fixation and release of his third time-bound pay scale, Seventh Pay Commission benefits, pension, gratuity, leave encashment, and other retiral dues with interest.

Whether the respondents could withhold the petitioner’s retiral dues merely on the basis of a pre-retirement show-cause notice and a pending proposal to initiate post-retirement departmental proceedings, in the absence of a concluded enquiry or recovery order?

Whether the respondents should be directed to properly fix and release the petitioner’s admissible pensionary benefits, gratuity, and remaining pensionary dues with interest for the period of delay?

The Court applied the principle that retiral dues cannot be withheld indefinitely in the absence of a concluded departmental proceeding, a lawful order of recovery, or other demonstrated legal authority justifying such withholding.

The Court also considered Finance Instruction No. 09/2017, relied upon by the State, which prescribes the approval mechanism for instituting departmental proceedings against a government servant after retirement.

However, the pendency of administrative approval for initiating such proceedings was held insufficient, by itself, to justify withholding the petitioner’s retiral benefits indefinitely.

The Court found that the State’s own affidavit established that no departmental enquiry had been concluded against the petitioner and that no recovery order had been passed.

Although a show-cause notice had been issued before retirement, the proceedings had not culminated in any finding of misconduct or financial liability.

Further, the proposal for initiating post-retirement proceedings was still pending before the concerned Minister.

Applying the principle that pensionary and retiral benefits cannot be withheld merely because a possible departmental proceeding is under consideration, the Court concluded that the continued withholding of gratuity and other admissible retiral dues was unjustified.

The Court therefore directed proper fixation of the petitioner’s pensionary benefits and release of the admissible dues, while also awarding interest on the delayed payment.

The respondents were directed to properly fix the petitioner’s pensionary benefits and release the admissible gratuity and remaining 100% pensionary benefits within 50 days from receipt of the order.

They were also directed to pay interest at 12% per annum on the delayed retiral dues, subject to the petitioner’s entitlement.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.