Retiral benefits cannot be withheld on account of private judicial proceedings unrelated to official duties.

The Applicant, a Junior Accounts Officer at BSNL, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the CDA Rules, 2006, resulting in a penalty of pay reduction for four years effective from 26.08.2017

During this period, she opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and retired on 31.01.2020

Despite the conclusion of the penalty period in August 2021, the respondents withheld her retiral benefits—including DCRG, Commutation, and Ex-Gratia—citing the pendency of a private civil dispute before a Civil Court in Coimbatore

The Applicant, a cancer patient facing severe financial hardship, challenged the impugned orders dated 11.11.2024 and 21.11.2024, which categorized the private dispute as "judicial proceedings" to justify the withholding of dues

During the hearing, evidence was produced showing the private civil case was officially closed on 17.02.2026

1. Whether a private civil dispute, unrelated to an employee’s official duties, constitutes "judicial proceedings" for the purpose of withholding retiral benefits under service rules

2. Whether the respondents were justified in withholding the Applicant’s benefits for over five years, particularly in light of her medical condition and the eventual closure of the civil case

The Tribunal applied the principle that retiral benefits are earned rights for past services and cannot be withheld without statutory authority or a direct nexus to official misconduct

It relied on Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, establishing that judicial proceedings commence only upon the filing of a charge-sheet

It further cited Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) and H.R. Choudhary v. CAT (2017) to affirm that the pendency of proceedings unrelated to official duties does not justify withholding pension or gratuity

The Tribunal also referenced Pramod Singh Kirar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), emphasizing that disputes of a purely personal nature fall outside the scope of provisions allowing the withholding of benefits

The Tribunal found that the respondents erroneously classified a private civil dispute as "judicial proceedings" within the meaning of service regulations

It noted that the Coimbatore court case had no nexus whatsoever with the Applicant’s service or official functions

The court criticized the respondents' lack of application of mind, highlighting that even provisional pension was denied to the Applicant since 2020

By referencing a "catena of judgments," the Tribunal underscored that only acts committed in an official capacity can trigger the withholding of dues

Given that the Applicant is a cancer patient in urgent need of funds and that the private case had reached a final closure as of 17.02.2026, the Tribunal determined the respondents’ continued retention of funds was arbitrary, unsustainable, and legally flawed

It held that private civil disputes cannot be used as a pretext to withhold retiral benefits

The respondents were directed to release all retiral benefits (DCRG, Commutation, Ex-Gratia) to the Applicant within eight weeks

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the benefits were initially withheld until the actual date of payment

No order as to costs was made