CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI O.A. No. 3362/2019 This the 27^th day of May, 2025 Hon’ble Mrs. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

Sh. Suresh Kumar Jagwani, Aged about 60 years S/o Sh. D.B. Jagwani, R/o III-A/221, Rachna Flats, Vaishali, Ghaziabad (UP)

(Retired as Scientist F from the office of respondents Group A)

... Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. S.K. Gupta)

Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, CGO Complex, Block No. 14, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

2. Principal cum Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, B-4, 9th Floor, Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-1100033 …Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Gyanendra Singh)

ORDER (ORAL)

By Hon’ble Ms. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J):

The applicant, while serving as Scientist „F‟, retired on

31.05.2019 upon attaining the age of superannuation. Although he is in receipt of provisional pension, the retrial dues have been withheld. Consequently, he submitted a representation to the respondents, which was rejected by the Competent Authority on 06.06.2019. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-

“i) quash and set aside the decision dated 30.05.2019 taking decision to withhold the pension and pensionary benefits of the applicant being contrary to Rule 9(6) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and accordingly, the communication dated 30.05.2019 (Annexure-A-1) may kindly be set aside; (ii). direct the respondents no.1&2 to release all pension and pensionary benefits to the applicant including (leave encashment, gratuity, Group Insurance, commutation of pension and) final pension and the arrears of the amount as disbursed to the applicant along with the interest at the rate of

18% р.а.;

(iii). award the cost of litigation;

iv). May also pass any further order(s), direction(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice:”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to Rule 9(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which clearly outlines the circumstances under which retrial dues may be withheld by the respondents. He submits that none of the conditions stipulated in the provision existed, at the time of the retirement of the applicant that could serve as an impediment in release of the retrial dues. Therefore, the withholding of retrial dues is irregular and unsustainable in law. He adds, the applicant was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 30.05.2019, to which he submitted a reply on the very same date. Subsequently, a charge sheet was issued on 13.08.2019, which was after the date of retirement. He reiterates that the conditions prescribed under Rule 9(6), that could justify withholding retrial benefits, did not exist as on the date of the retirement of the applicant.

3. Mr. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently opposes the present OA and relies on the averments made in the counter reply. He submits, the applicant had a consistent pattern of making false and baseless allegations against his batch-mates and seniors. On 08.05.2019, the applicant submitted a note to the Secretary, MNRE, raising serious allegations on certain issues. A Preliminary Inquiry was conducted, and based on its findings, the Vigilance Division of the Ministry decided to issue a Show Cause Notice (SCN). The SCN was issued on 30.05.2019, and the applicant retired on the very next day upon attaining the age of superannuation. Learned counsel submits, as vigilance clearance was not available on the date of retirement, the retrial dues of the applicant could not be released. There were a clear indication from the Vigilance Department to the Pay & Accounts with furtherance of the non clearance of the Vigilance Department, the P&A were intimated to withhold the terminal benefits of the applicant. He emphasizes on the date of retirement very genesis of the charges were in existence and therefore, the benefits could not b