Retiral benefits cannot be withheld or restricted to provisional pension if no departmental or judicial proceedings are pending on the date of superannuation.

The respondent joined the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as a Surveyor in 1980 and was promoted to Assistant Director in 1989

In 2010, he was suspended pending an investigation into fraudulent plot allotments from 1988-1989; however, this suspension was revoked on February 24, 2014

An FIR was registered against him in 2012 by the Anti-Corruption Branch under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, and various sections of the IPC

Despite these allegations, the respondent was promoted to Deputy Director in 2015 and superannuated on February 29, 2016

Following retirement, the DDA withheld his full pensionary benefits, leading the respondent to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which ruled in his favor on January 9, 2026

The DDA challenged this order, arguing that the pending investigation justified withholding benefits

1. Whether retiral benefits can be limited to provisional pension under Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, if no departmental or judicial proceedings were pending on the date of superannuation.

Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which stipulates that a government servant is only entitled to "provisional pension" if departmental or judicial proceedings are pending against them on the date of retirement

Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, implying that judicial proceedings in corruption cases commence only when a court takes cognizance, which requires a prior sanction for prosecution

The Court examined the status of the respondent on his retirement date, February 29, 2016. It observed that although an FIR existed, no court had taken cognizance of the matter because the sanction for prosecution was not granted until March 14, 2024—eight years after his retirement

no departmental charge-sheet had been issued, and his prior suspension had been revoked

The Court reasoned that under Rule 69, the trigger for withholding full benefits is the pendency of "provisional or judicial proceedings" at the time of superannuation. Since the investigation had not matured into "judicial proceedings" (cognizance) or "departmental proceedings" (charge-sheet) by February 2016, the DDA had no legal authority to restrict the respondent to a provisional pension

The Court affirmed the Tribunal’s judgment and dismissed the DDA’s writ petition in limine