Entitlement to full pension and gratuity is dependent on the absence of pending judicial or departmental proceedings at the time of retirement, as per the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner herein stood retired from the Office of the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer on 31-7-2019, but he is being paid only anticipatory family pension to the extent of 90% and gratuity has been withheld on the ground that some non-departmental enquiry has been conducted by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kawardha and the Executive Engineer, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, Kawardha, and report has been submitted to the Director, Agriculture on 25-5-2021.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that since no departmental enquiry nor any criminal case is pending or initiated against him on the date of his retirement i.e. 31-7-2019, therefore, he is entitled for full pension and the amount of gratuity as well.

3. Return has been filed by the State/respondents No.1 to 4 stating that non-departmental enquiry has been conducted by the two Executive Engineers and report has been submitted to the Director, Agriculture on 25-5-2021, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for full pension and also not entitled for gratuity as well. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, affidavit has been filed by the Director, Agriculture.

4. Mr. Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that on the date of retirement and even till today no judicial proceeding has been instituted against the petitioner in terms of Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, 'the Rules of 1976'), therefore, by virtue of Rule 64 (1)(c) of the Rules of 1976, the amount of gratuity cannot be withheld and as such, the petitioner is entitled for full pension and the amount of gratuity as well.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Amrito Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 4, would submit that since non-departmental enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner and certain recommendations have been made to the Director, Agriculture on 25-5-2021, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for full pension and the amount of gratuity as well.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. The first question for consideration is, whether the State Government is justified in not releasing full amount of pension in favour of the petitioner?

8. Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 1976 is enabling provision for grant of provisional pension during the pendency of judicial proceedings and the term “judicial proceedings” has been defined in Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of the Rules of 1976. Rules 9(4) and 9(6)(b)(i) of the Rules of 1976 state as under:-

“9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension.-

(1) to (3) xxx xxx xxx

(4) In the case of Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity as provided in Rule 64, as the case may be, shall be sanctioned:

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(6) For the purpose of this rule-

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted-

(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made; and

(ii) xxx xxx xxx”

9. Hindi version of Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 1976 states as under:-

^^¼4½ bl ekeys esa tgka 'kkldh; lsod vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q ij igqapus ;k vU;Fkk ls lsokfuo`Ÿk gqvk gS] rFkk ftlds fo:) dksbZ foHkkxh; ;k U;kf;d dk;Zokfg;ka lafLFkr gSa vFkok tgka foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;ka mufu;e ¼2½ ds v/khu fujUrj gSa] vfUre isa'ku rFkk e`R;q≶&lsokfuo`fŸk minku] tSlk fu;e 64 esa micaf/kr gS] eatwj gksxkA^^

10. This Court in the matter of Dr. S.D. Dwivedi v. The State of Chhattisgarh and others W.P.(S)No.295/2016, decided on 16-2-2018, relying upon the judgment of