Pensionary benefits cannot be withheld absent Rule 9 proceedings or other statutory authority.

The respondent, a DTC conductor, was dismissed in 1984 following disciplinary proceedings.

The Labour Court declared the termination illegal and directed reinstatement in 2009; DTC challenged that award in a pending writ petition.

In that proceeding, the Court ordered deposit of 40% of the back wages and later recorded DTC’s agreement to reinstate the respondent subject to the writ petition’s outcome.

The respondent subsequently superannuated, but DTC did not release his retiral benefits.

The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed his application, holding that the benefits could not be withheld absent a relevant legal basis. DTC challenged that decision in this writ petition.

1. Whether DTC could withhold the respondent’s pension and retiral benefits in the absence of proceedings under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, or another legal authority permitting withholding.

2. Whether the pending challenge to the Labour Court’s award, or any order in that proceeding, justified withholding those benefits.

Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and any other applicable legal provision must authorize the withholding of pensionary or retiral benefits; without such authority, those benefits cannot be withheld.

The Court relied on the principle that pension and gratuity are earned benefits and constitute property protected by Article 300A of the Constitution, as stated in State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, (2013) 12 SCC 210.

The Court found that no proceedings under Rule 9, or other provision authorizing withholding, had been initiated against the respondent.

Nor had the Court, in DTC’s pending challenge to the Labour Court award, ordered or permitted DTC to withhold his pensionary and retiral benefits.

The respondent had also succeeded before the Labour Court.

Accordingly, the Tribunal was correct to hold that DTC’s failure to release the benefits was unlawful.

The Court agreed with that conclusion independently of DTC’s challenge to the applicability of the cited Supreme Court decision.

It directed DTC to release the balance payments due within eight weeks.

Any amount held in the High Court Registry, together with accrued interest, was to be released to the respondent upon application within four weeks.

Because the deposited amount would have earned interest, the Tribunal’s separate direction for interest at 8% was held inapplicable.