Laxman Behera vs Union Of India & Ors.

Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J): As it reveals from the record, the applicant, Sri Laxman Behera, while working as Postal Assistant, under the respondents, retired from service compulsorily as a measure of punishment, vide order dated 25.02.2019, on culmination of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. His stand is that after his retirement, he is entitled to the Death cum Retirement Gratuity and Commutation of Pension, but the same was not released in his favour. Representation filed by him requesting to release his aforesaid benefits, which was rejected vide order dated 24.01.2022 (A/4). Hence, by filing the instant OA, he has prayed to quash the said order of rejection and to direct the respondents to release the DCRG and Commutation of Pension.

From the counter so also order of rejection dated 24.01.2022 (A/4), it reveals that on the basis of PS Case No. 0021/2019, GR Case No. 112 dated 24.10.2019 was instituted against the applicant, which is subjudice before the Ld. SDJM, Talcher. In terms of Rule 69(C) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Rule 4 of Chapter-II of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the applicant is not entitled to DCRG and commute a fraction of his provisional pension and, therefore, the same was rightly not released in his favour due to pendency of the judicial proceedings. As such, the action of the respondents to the above extent cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, respondents have prayed for dismissal of this OA. The applicant has also filed rejoinder.

According to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the provisions based on which the applicant was denied the benefits are not applicable to the case in hand and the respondents did not release the benefit and rejected the representation in an improper manner without due application of mind. It has been submitted that in terms of Rule 69(C) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, an employee is not eligible to get Gratuity etc. till conclusion of the department and judicial proceeding and issue of final order thereof whereas in the instant case the departmental proceedings have already been concluded with awarding of punishment and recovery and, thus, non-release of the statutory benefit to which the applicant is entitled to under Rules is highly illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that pendency of the criminal case for omission and commission of discharging his official duties is not in dispute. Rule 69(C) and Rule 4 of Chapter-II of CCS (Pension) Rules clearly put an embargo for release of the benefits as claimed by the applicant till conclusion of departmental and judicial proceedings and issue of final order thereon. The stand of the applicant that as the departmental proceeding has already been concluded, pendency of criminal case cannot be a bar to release the benefit, is his misconception. Accordingly, respondent shave prayed for dismissal of the OA.

After giving due consideration to the arguments advanced b the respective parties, perused the pleadings, documents placed in support thereof vis a vis the provision of Rule 69(C) and Rule 4 of Chapter-II of CCS (Pension) Rule. After going through the provisions of the rules, absolutely, there is no iota of doubt in mind that the action of the respondents is in any manner contrary to the statutory provisions referred to above since it is not in dispute that the judicial proceedings initiated against the applicant is still subjudice before the Ld. SDJM, Talcher. Nonetheless, it may be stated that Writ Petition (C) No. 19169/2018 (UOI & Ors. Vs. Shri Durga Prasad Kar), which was filed by the department challenging the order of this Tribunal, the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide order dt. 17.03.2022 after considering the provision of Rule 69(C) of CCS (Pension) Rules and, taking into consideration the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Kalicharan Mohapatra, (1995) 6 SCC 105, and Y.K.Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank, (2013) 3 SCC 472, have held that during the pendency of the criminal case, an employee is not entitled to the gratuity on the face of the statutory provisions. Therefore, the action of the respondents for not releasing the DCRG and Commuted Value of Pension due to pendency of the criminal case against the applicant, in view of the statutory provision and law quoted above cannot be faulted with.

Corollary to the discussions made above, it is held that this OA sans any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.