PENSIONARY BENEFITS CANNOT BE WITHHELD DUE TO PENDING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNRELATED TO OFFICIAL DUTIES

The applicant, appointed as a Beldar in 1981 and later a Vehicle Driver in 1996, retired from the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) on 30.06.2022.

Following his retirement, the respondents withheld his full pension and gratuity, releasing only provisional pension due to the pendency of a criminal case (FIR No. 207/2011) involving a family dispute.

The applicant contended that the FIR was unrelated to his official duties, no cognizance had been taken by the Trial Court as of 2021, and his similarly placed brother (co-accused) had received full retiral benefits.

The respondents justified the withholding under Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, citing the continued pendency of judicial proceedings.

1. Whether the respondents are legally permitted to withhold regular pension and gratuity on account of a pending criminal case that is unrelated to the applicant’s official discharge of duties.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to parity in treatment with a co-accused colleague who was granted full retiral benefits despite being named in the same FIR.

The Tribunal relied on Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules regarding the provisional grant of pension during pending proceedings.

The legal principle established by the Delhi High Court in UOI Anr. v. Prabhu Lal and the Rajasthan High Court in H. R. Choudhary v. CAT, which mandates that retiral benefits cannot be withheld unless the pending judicial proceedings relate to misconduct in the discharge of official duties or involve causing financial loss to the government.

The Full Bench decision in Rajbir Singh v. MCD Anr. (OA No. 2821/2023) regarding the payment of interest at GPF rates for delayed retirement dues.

The Tribunal found that the criminal proceedings against the applicant stemmed from a private dispute (FIR No. 207/2011) and had "nothing to do with the official discharge of duties".

Applying the ratio from the cited precedents, the bench reasoned that the power to withhold pensionary benefits under the CCS Rules is contingent upon a finding of grave misconduct in an official capacity.

The Tribunal observed a violation of the principle of equity, as the applicant's elder brother—the primary accused in the same FIR and a former employee of the same department—had already been granted full pensionary benefits.

The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, rendering the continued withholding of his dues arbitrary.

The Respondent No. 1 (CEO, DJB) was directed to release the applicant's full gratuity and regular pension within three months, along with interest at the current GPF rate for the period of delay.