23.07.2025 (D/L-5) Ct. No.4 (B.K.N.)

W.P.C.T. 125 of 2025 Sri Rajendra Kumar Yadav Vs.

Union of India & Another Mr. Ujjal Roy, Mr. S. K. Ganguly ...for the Petitioner Mr. Prabir Bhowmik, Mr. Amit Sharma ...for the Respondents

1. The petitioner herein has assailed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 1142 of 2024 dated 26.03.2025 whereby the prayer made by the petitioner seeking interest in respect of delayed payment has been rejected by the learned Tribunal.

2. The fact of the case is that the petitioner retired on

31.01.2018 and at the time of retirement a judicial proceeding being a criminal case was pending against the said petitioner. Subsequently on 08.05.2023 the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi quashed the criminal case against the applicant in Criminal M.P. No. 3308 of 2013 along with Criminal M.P. No. 2540 of 2012 bringing an end to the criminal proceeding in favour of the petitioner. The said fact was intimated to the authority on 21.07.2023 and 25.08.2023. Subsequently on receiving the said information the amount of gratuity which was withheld was disbursed in favour of the petitioner on 14.11.2023. The said order passed by the Hon’ble Bench is laid down which is as follows:

“As, the record reflects that the criminal case against the applicant i.e., Rajendra Kumar Yadav Has been quashed vide Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2023 in Cr. M.P. No. 3308 of 2013(Ashok Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.) along with Cr. M. P. No. 2540 of 2012 (Rajendra Kumar Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.) passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a representation dated 21.07.2023 for informing the competent authority that his criminal case has been quashed by the Hon’ble High Court and further requested for release of his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) under Section-87(1) of R. S. Pension Rules, 1993, which remain pending till date.

Under the circumstances, the competent authority i.e., Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, Adra Division, i.e., respondent no. 2 herein, is directed to decide the said application/ claim of the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 02 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law.

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the claim of the applicant, and all points are kept open for consideration by the respondents. OA stands disposed of. No costs.”

3. As the petitioner was not granted interest on DCRG dues for the period of delay in disbursing the amount of gratuity he has preferred the Original Application referred hereinabove.

4. The authorities had withheld the DCRG dues by resorting to Rule 10(1)(c) of the Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993 which contemplates withholding DCRG dues in case of pendency of a criminal case against a retired employee. Though the petitioner was entitled to payment of his DCRG on the day following the date of retirement and the same not being paid to him and, therefore, the criminal case being quashed he claimed interest on the DCRG dues.

5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Md. Farid –Vs.- Union of India and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine, Cal 2816 and has stressed upon paragraph

21 & 23 of the said judgment which reads:

“21. The proposition of law that could be culled out from the judgment delivered in the case of Y.K. Singla (Supra) is that from the mandate of Section 14 of the 1972 Act, it is imperative to conclude that the provisions of the 1972 Act would have overriding effect with reference to any inconsistency therewith in any other provision or instrument. The benefit of interest enuring to an employee as has been contemplated under Section 7(3A) of the 1972 Act cannot be denied to the employee whose gratuity is regulated by some