Post-retiral benefits cannot be withheld solely on unresolved vigilance allegations absent formal disciplinary penalty.

The petitioner, a former employee of the Local Bodies Department, was regularised as a Junior Assistant in 1987 and subsequently promoted to Senior Assistant and Head Assistant.

Although a Departmental Promotion Committee cleared him for promotion to the post of Secretary at Serial No. 7, his promotion was not implemented because vigilance clearance was withheld and his case was placed in a sealed cover.

He retired on 30 April 2019 while working as Incharge Executive Officer, but his pensionary and retiral benefits were calculated on the basis of his lower post, and his gratuity remained withheld.

The respondents relied on vigilance cases, including FIR No. 32/2003 concerning alleged illegal appointments in Municipal Committee, Magam, FIR No. 16/1997, and Verification No. BK-03/2009.

Although prosecution sanction was not granted in FIR No. 32/2003, the matter was referred for departmental action; the final report was subsequently accepted by the competent court.

In the other matters also, departmental action was recommended, but no formal penal order had been passed against the petitioner.

Whether the respondents could continue to withhold vigilance clearance/NOC from the petitioner on the basis of pending or proposed vigilance/departmental action where no prosecution sanction had been granted and no formal penalty had been imposed.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to notional promotion, re-fixation of pension, gratuity, and other post-retiral benefits notwithstanding the absence of vigilance clearance.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the service-law principle that an employee who has attained superannuation cannot be denied accrued pensionary and other retiral benefits merely on the basis of unfinalised allegations, pending vigilance correspondence, or proposed departmental action, particularly where prosecution sanction has not been granted and no formal disciplinary penalty has been imposed.

The Court further directed that service benefits be considered and released in accordance with the applicable service rules.

No specific judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

The Court found that the vigilance proceedings had not culminated in a prosecutable case or a formal disciplinary penalty against the petitioner.

In FIR No. 32/2003, prosecution sanction had been refused and the final report had been accepted; in the other matters, only departmental action had been recommended, without any demonstrated conclusion or punishment.

Accordingly, the respondents’ continued refusal to issue an NOC could not lawfully justify withholding the petitioner’s promotion-related and post-retiral benefits.

Since the petitioner had retired on attaining the age of superannuation and his entitlement had not been extinguished by any adverse final order, the Court held that his benefits had to be processed under the applicable rules.

The Anti-Corruption Bureau/Vigilance authority was directed to issue the requisite NOC to the petitioner.

Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were directed, upon receipt of the NOC, to consider granting the petitioner notional promotion from the date on which he had been proposed for promotion, re-fix his pension, and release all post-retiral benefits, including the withheld gratuity, in accordance with the rules.

The NOC was to be issued preferably within two months of receipt of the certified judgment, and the departmental authorities were to process the consequential benefits within two months thereafter.