ORDER

The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“8.1 allow the present OA and direct the respondents to release all the retirement benefits of her service life viz.

retirement dues such as full pension, gratuity and otherconsequential payments, with interest @ 18% p.a.compounded yearly thereon, from 01.05.2013 onwards till the date of actual payment; and

8.2 to grant any other or further appropriate relief as deemed just and proper by ther Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case besides cost ofpresent litigation, to the extent of Rs. 55,000/-.”

2. The brief facts of the case is that the present applicant was appointed as Clerk with the respondents in the year 1974. While working as Head Clerk in the DRM Office, Personnel Branch, the petitioner was falsely implicated in a bribe case by the CBI and the Criminal case RC No. 27 (A)/94-DLI was registered against her alongwith another Railway employee Jai Chand u/s 120-B IPC read with section 13 (1) (d) & 13 (7) of PC Act and u/s 7 & 13 (2) & 13 (1) (d) of PC Act. Relevantpara of the CBI Court order dated 23.12.2020, reads as under:- “Above stated conduct of the two accused circumstantially establish connivance between them of doing illegal act of accepting bribe, constitute the of criminal conspiracy to as defined by section 120-A of the India Penal Code. Thus as per the evidence adduced by the prosecution in ther case, it is proved beyond any doubt that both the accused have committed the offences they have been jointly charged with accordingly, accused Pooja Rawal is held guilty for having committee offences punishable u/s 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of the Act and also for the offences punishable u/s 120-B IPC r/w the above-stated offences under the Act. Accused Jai Chand, however, is held guilty for committing of offence punishable u/s 120-B of the IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, only. They are convicted for the respective offences, accordingly.”2.1.Subsequently, on 24.12.2002, the sentence was announced, and the CBI Court directed that both the accused be released on their furnishing Personal Bond of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for a period of two years with one surety each, with an undertaking to appear whenever called upon during ther period. In case of a breach of the terms of the bond, they were liable to receive the sentence and were further required to keep peace and maintain good behavior.

2.2.The applicant retired on superannuation on 30.04.2013. The respondents granted provisional pension and released all the retiral benefits except the commuted pension and gratuity. However, they have not finalized the provisional pension as yet.

2.3.The applicant submitted a representation on 15.01.2016, requesting the respondents to release the pending retirement benefits and finalize her pension. Subsequently, reminders/representations were sentby the applicant on 15.02.2016 and 18.06.2016. On 02.06.2016, the respondents rejected the claim of the applicant, stating that the CBI case is pending in the Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly, they could not grant the remaining pensionary benefits to the applicant. Being aggrieved, she has filed the present OA seeking the aforementioned relief.

2.4. The learned counsel for the applicant based her argument on theground that the CBI Court has stated in its order dated 24.12.2020 as follows:- “Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law.”2.5. The learned counsel for the applicant states that in view of the findings given by the CBI Court that the conviction of the applicant in the said case will not amount to any disqualification in her service, the stand taken by the respondent is against the judgment giv