Retiral benefits cannot be withheld if no judicial or disciplinary proceedings were pending at superannuation.

The Applicant, a Telephone Mechanic at MTNL, was named in FIR No. 369/2015 under Sections 420/406/120B of the IPC

Parallel disciplinary proceedings were initiated via a memorandum dated 08.12.2017, which concluded with the imposition of a minor penalty of "Censure" in December 2017

The Applicant superannuated on 30.04.2019

Upon retirement, the Respondents withheld full pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefits, instead sanctioning only a provisional pension of ₹13,340/-

The Applicant sought parity with a co-accused, Ravi Kumar Dogra, whose retiral benefits were ordered to be released by the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 5186/2019

Crucially, while the FIR was registered in 2015, the Trial Court took cognizance of the criminal charges only on 07.03.2023, nearly four years after the Applicant's retirement

1. Whether the Respondents were legally justified in withholding full pension and retiral benefits on the ground of a pending criminal case when cognizance was taken post-retirement?

2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to parity with the co-accused regarding the release of terminal benefits?

Rule 9 and Rule 69(1)(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which govern the withholding of gratuity and pension during the pendency of departmental or judicial proceedings

Rule 9(6)(b), which stipulates that judicial proceedings are deemed pending only when the complaint/report is filed or cognizance is taken by the Magistrate

DOP&T OMs dated 13.04.2019 and 28.02.1981, which prohibit withholding pensionary benefits in cases involving only minor penalty proceedings

Precedents of V.P. Singh v. GNCTD (Delhi HC) and Union of India v. J.P. Sharma (Delhi HC), which established that benefits cannot be withheld if no charge sheet was issued or cognizance taken at the time of superannuation

The Tribunal observed that at the time of the Applicant's retirement on 30.04.2019, no disciplinary proceedings were pending as the prior proceedings had already culminated in a minor penalty ("Censure") in 2017

Regarding the judicial proceedings, the Tribunal noted that under Rule 9(6)(b), a criminal case is not "pending" until a charge sheet is filed or the court takes cognizance.

Since cognizance in FIR No. 369/2015 was only taken on 07.03.2023, no judicial proceedings were legally pending on the date of superannuation

The Tribunal reasoned that withholding benefits indefinitely awaiting the conclusion of such proceedings constitutes "harassment" and is "bad in the eyes of law"

The Respondents conceded that the Applicant's case was identical to that of Ravi Kumar Dogra, whose benefits were released under judicial orders; thus, denying the same to the Applicant was held to be discriminatory

The Respondents were directed to release the difference in pension, gratuity, and all other retiral benefits (including leave encashment and commutation)

The court ordered the payment of interest at 6% per annum from the due date of retirement until the actual date of payment, taking into account the recommendations of the 7th CPC, to be implemented within 12 weeks