Pending investigation without formal charges or prosecution cannot justify withholding Non-Functional Selection benefits.

The applicant joined government service as Grade-IV (DASS) in 1989 and received regular promotions, reaching Grade-I (DASS) on 17.02.2021

Upon completing four years of service in Grade-I, he became eligible for Non-Functional Selection (NFS) in Pay Level 10 effective from 01.01.2025

However, the respondents denied the NFS benefit based on vigilance reports dated 04.03.2025 and 16.05.2025, which cited a pending CBI investigation (RC-EOU-1-2006-0003) dating back to 2006 regarding irregularities in a Housing Society

Although the FIR was registered in 2006, the applicant was never suspended, nor was he served a charge-sheet in any disciplinary or criminal proceeding

Notably, the respondents had granted the applicant a financial upgradation (MACP) in 2010 and two promotions in 2015 and 2021 despite the pendency of the same CBI case

1. Whether the pendency of a decades-old CBI investigation, in the absence of a charge-sheet or suspension, constitutes a valid legal ground to deny Non-Functional Selection (NFS) benefits

2. Whether the respondents' denial of vigilance clearance is arbitrary and discriminatory in light of the fact that clearance was granted for promotions and MACP on three previous occasions during the pendency of the same investigation

Ministry of Finance Resolution No. 1/1/2008-1C, which entitles Group 'B' officers to Non-Functional Grade Pay after four years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs. 4800

The primary legal standard for withholding vigilance clearance is governed by DOPT OM No. 22011/4/91-Estt (A) dated 14.09.1992, which limits such withholding to three specific scenarios: (i) suspension, (ii) service of a charge-sheet in disciplinary proceedings, or (iii) pendency of criminal prosecution (filing of a charge-sheet in court)

DOPT OM dated 19.05.1993, requiring an opportunity for the employee before denying benefits on vigilance grounds, and the Delhi High Court judgment in Sushil Kumar v. Union of India, which restricts denial of benefits based on mere preliminary inquiries

The Tribunal found that as of the date of consideration for NFS, none of the conditions specified in the 1992 DOPT OM were met; the applicant was neither under suspension nor had any charge-sheet been filed against him in a court or departmentally

The court emphasized that the CBI case had been pending since 2006, yet the respondents had deemed the applicant fit for vigilance clearance for his MACP in 2010 and promotions in 2015 and 2021

The Tribunal reasoned that since the legal status of the CBI case remained unchanged since those clearances, there was no justifiable reason for the respondents to deviate from their earlier stance

The court held that "mere pendency" of a matter under examination, without formal prosecution or departmental charges, cannot be used to stall time-bound financial benefits like NFS

It quashed the impugned Vigilance Clearance Status letter dated 16.05.2025

The respondents were directed to obtain a fresh vigilance clearance for the applicant and pass a reasoned speaking order regarding the grant of NFS benefits within four weeks, specifically considering the applicant’s upcoming retirement in June 2026

No order as to costs was made