Provisional pension is impermissible when no departmental or judicial proceedings are pending at retirement.

The applicant, an Income Tax officer who retired on 30 April 2024, had been absent from duty from 3 August 2001 to 26 July 2003.

Disciplinary proceedings for unauthorised absence culminated in a minor penalty on 17 February 2011. His requests to regularise the absence remained undecided.

On retirement, the Zonal Accounts Officer sanctioned provisional pension under Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, using an unrevised pay of ₹2,11,800, notwithstanding a pay-fixation order dated 9 May 2024 fixing his pay at ₹2,18,200.

The Tribunal had earlier directed consideration of his representation, which was rejected on 28 August 2024. The applicant challenged the provisional pension and sought regularisation of the absence and payment of retiral benefits.

Whether provisional pension could be sanctioned when no departmental or judicial proceeding was pending on the applicant’s date of retirement.

Whether the 2011 penalty determined how the absence period was to be treated, and whether the unresolved period justified withholding final pension.

Whether pension should be calculated on the revised pay of ₹2,18,200 or the unrevised pay of ₹2,11,800.

What relief the applicant was entitled to.

The Tribunal applied Rules 5(1), 8(3)–(4), 21, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 44 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.

Rule 8 permits provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted and remain pending; an unresolved service-book entry or administrative delay alone does not qualify.

Rules 27 and 28 govern the effect and condonation of interruptions in service: an appointing authority may commute absence without leave as extraordinary leave, while an interruption is generally treated as condoned absent a specific indication to the contrary; a decision not to condone requires exceptional and grave circumstances and an opportunity to be heard.

Rule 21 addresses whether extraordinary leave counts as qualifying service, and Rule 26 defines pensionable emoluments by reference to the pay received immediately before retirement. Under Rule 44, pension is calculated for qualifying service of at least ten years.

The Tribunal also relied on State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L. Singla, (2008) 8 SCC 469, which explains that an employer may either condone unauthorised absence by sanctioning leave or treat it as misconduct and impose a penalty, but must account for the absence.

State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, (2013) 12 SCC 210, and Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330, establish that pension is a property right that cannot be withheld without authority of law.

The only disciplinary proceeding had concluded with the 2011 penalty, so no proceeding was pending when the applicant retired in 2024; the respondents produced no evidence of any later proceeding.

The unverified absence period was not a statutory basis for provisional pension under Rule 8, and the pension order therefore lacked authority of law.

The penalty did not itself regularise the absence, but the respondents had to determine its treatment under the applicable rules. Since no order declining condonation had been made and no opportunity to be heard had been given, the appointing authority had to decide the matter by a reasoned order; the applicant’s pre-absence service could not be forfeited.

The unresolved absence did not affect the pension calculation because the applicant had more than thirty-three years of qualifying service even if the disputed period were excluded.

The revised pay fixation remained in force and therefore had to form the basis for pension.

The Tribunal quashed the provisional-pension order dated 26 June 2024 and the rejection order dated 28 August 2024.

It directed the respondents to calculate pension using pay of ₹2,18,200, issue a regular Pension Payment Order, and release pension arrears and withheld retiral dues within eight weeks, with interest at the applicable GPF rate from 1 August 2024.

The appointing authority was separately directed, within the same period, to decide by a reasoned order how the absence from 3 August 2001 to 26 July 2003 should be treated, after hearing the applicant; that process was not to delay payment of pension and retiral dues.