Pending judicial proceedings bar gratuity payment until conclusion and issuance of final orders under Rule 69(1)(c).

The applicant, a retired Senior Tax Assistant in the Income Tax Department, superannuated on 31 August 2020.

His vigilance clearance was withheld because a criminal case arising from FIR No. R.C. No. 18(S)/1992-Lucknow and Criminal Complaint No. 185/1999 was pending against him before the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Lucknow.

Charges had been framed on 7 December 2017 and the criminal trial was continuing.

The respondents sanctioned provisional pension but withheld gratuity and full pension by relying on Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, on the ground that judicial proceedings were pending.

The applicant contended that no departmental proceedings had ever been initiated against him, that he had not been found guilty of misconduct, and that withholding his retiral benefits was arbitrary.

He also alleged discriminatory treatment compared with other employees who had been exonerated in departmental proceedings.

The applicant sought quashing of the order dated 21/25 August 2020 and directions for payment of full pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits.

Whether the pendency of a criminal proceeding against a retired government servant legally justified withholding gratuity until conclusion of the judicial proceeding and issuance of final orders.

Whether the applicant was entitled to payment of full pension and other retiral benefits despite the pending criminal case, where no departmental proceeding had been initiated against him.

The Tribunal applied Rule 69(1)(a)–(c) and Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Rule 69 permits payment of provisional pension during the pendency of departmental or judicial proceedings and expressly provides that no gratuity shall be paid until conclusion of such proceedings and issuance of final orders, subject to the rule’s limited exception for certain proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

The Tribunal relied principally on Union of India v. Mithai Ram, Writ Petition No. A-2248 of 2021, where the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, held that gratuity cannot be paid during the pendency of a criminal trial under Rule 69(1)(c).

It also followed the Tribunal’s decision in Rama Pati Chaubey v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 473/2019, which adopted the same principle.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had retired while the criminal case was pending, that charges had already been framed, and that the trial remained ongoing.

Applying Rule 69(1)(c), as interpreted by the Allahabad High Court in Mithai Ram, the Tribunal held that the pendency of the judicial proceeding was sufficient to bar payment of gratuity until the proceeding concluded and final orders were issued.

The absence of departmental proceedings did not alter the position because Rule 69 applies to pending judicial proceedings as well.

The Tribunal further accepted the respondents’ action of granting provisional pension during the pendency of the case and declined to grant the applicant’s claim for full pension and other withheld retiral benefits.

The applicant’s plea of discriminatory treatment was not accepted as a ground for relief.

The Original Application was dismissed for lack of merit, with no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.