Pending criminal prosecution justifies withholding remaining retiral dues under applicable Railway pension rules.

The applicant, a Railway employee who retired on 31 December 2019 while under suspension, faced a pending criminal prosecution concerning alleged fraudulent payments.

No departmental proceeding was pending against him at retirement.

The respondents sanctioned provisional pension and paid subsistence allowance for the suspension period, but withheld his other retiral dues pending the criminal case.

The applicant sought, among other reliefs, release of those dues and salary for the suspension period.

After an earlier direction to decide his representation, he brought the present application; the respondents maintained that the criminal case justified withholding the dues.

The applicant did not appear at the hearing, and the Tribunal decided the matter on the record after hearing the respondents.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to release of his remaining retiral dues while the criminal case against him remained pending.

2. Whether the respondents’ withholding of those dues was unlawful in the absence of a pending departmental proceeding at the time of retirement.

The Tribunal considered the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, as the applicable rules governing the applicant’s pension and retiral benefits.

It did not identify a specific rule or cite any precedent.

On the facts presented, the Tribunal held that withholding the remaining retiral dues pending the criminal case was consistent with the applicable rules.

The Tribunal noted that, although no departmental proceeding was pending at retirement, the applicant remained subject to a criminal prosecution before the competent CBI Court concerning alleged fraudulent payments of ₹21,85,87,070.

Provisional pension was being paid and the subsistence allowance for the suspension period had been paid.

Applying the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, the Tribunal found no illegality or infirmity in withholding the remaining retiral dues while the prosecution remained pending.

It left the applicant at liberty to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority for release of those dues if acquitted in the criminal case.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.