SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12893

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)
Mohd. Taufiq – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
Original Application No. 09 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Dharmendra Tiwari
For the Respondents: Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey

Pension benefits cannot be withheld solely on the basis of pending criminal cases unless serious misconduct is established linking the case to the employment.

Headnote:(A) Civil Service Regulations - Articles 351 and 351-A, CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, CCS Commutation of Pension Rules 1981 - Withholding of gratuity and pension due to pending criminal cases - Court held that mere pendency does not justify withholding benefits without a serious crime finding - The impugned order lacks application of mind and must be set aside. (Paras 12, 13, 10)

(B) Consideration of Criminal Cases - The nature of allegations must be serious to justify withholding pension - The respondent authorities need to substantiate that the criminal proceedings are relevant to service conduct for withholding benefits. (Paras 18-20)

Facts of the case:
The applicant retired from Ordnance Clothing Factory and had funds withheld due to criminal proceedings initiated post his daughter’s marital disputes, which do not pertain to his service. This situation was challenged in this OA after several representations for pension benefits were denied by the authorities.

Findings of Court:
The court directed to reconsider the application and issue a reasoned order, emphasizing the need for substantial grounds to withhold pension based on serious crimes.

Issues: Whether the stated criminal cases warrant withholding the applicant's gratuity and pension, especially in the absence of a related departmental inquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: The judiciary decreed that without evidencing serious crime linked to pension entitlement, the withholding was unjust and should warrant re-evaluation. This aligns with previous jurisprudence emphasizing the need for specifications in withholding financial benefits linked to service conduct.

Result: The OA is allowed, and the order dated 04.03.2022 is set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the applicant's retirement and issues causing pension withdrawal. (Para 3 , 4)
2. contention regarding the application of pension rules related to pending criminal cases. (Para 5 , 8)
3. court's observation on the need for substantial evidence regarding serious crimes. (Para 7 , 11 , 12)
4. the court's directive to issue a reasoned order regarding the withheld pension. (Para 10)
5. final directive to reconsider and communicate the decision promptly. (Para 14)

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)

Shri Dharmendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

2. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :-

“(i) That, this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to issue an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 04.03.2022, passed by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure-A-1 in Compilation No. I of the O.A.).

(ii) That, this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to issue an order in the nature mandamus directing the respondents to pay the Gratuity, the payment due against commutation of pension and final pension after commutation of the applicant with interest.

(iii) That, this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to such other order and / or direction and grant such other relief to the applicant as might be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(vi) Award the cost of this application in favour of the applicant.

3. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the applicant is that the applicant was a Tailor/MCM in Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjahanpur, U.P. and retired from service on 30.06.2020. The pension payment order was issued from Respondent No.2 on 25.08.2020.

4. On 12.04.2019, a notice was issued regarding pendency of Criminal Case against the applicant which was duly replied on 16.04.2019. The Criminal Case pending against the applicant was not arising out of the departmental inquiry neither any departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicant during his service period. After marriage of the daughter of the applicant in the year 2012, her husband (Son in law of applicant) initiated two false criminal complaints against the applicant and his family members due to marital dispute between his daughter and her husband, which is not related to service of the applicant. The applicant received a letter dated 25.08.2020 inclosing the order that gratuity, commutation of pension and final pension has been withheld by the department due to pendency of criminal case against the applicant. He has submitted a detailed representation dated 26.04.2021, which was disposed of vide letter dated 05.06.2021 directing to intimate the current status of the pending cases before the C.J.M., Shahjahanpur. His daughter got divorced on 27.09.2017 due to marital dispute like demand of dowry and ill-treatment meted out to her. Thus, son in law of the applicant filed a criminal complaint No.8842/2017 under Sections 452/323/504/506 and 394 of I.P.C. and another criminal complaint under Section 506 I.P.C. Police Station Sadar Bazar, Shahjahanpur dated 23.03.2018. The husband of the daughter also filed Habeas Corpus Petition No.21044/2018 before the Hon’ble High Court, which was dismissed on 06.08.2018. The above criminal proceedings are not concerned with the department and no disciplinary proceedings is pending against the applicant. The applicant filed Writ Petition No.16858/2021, which was disposed of by Hon’ble High Court with a direction to decide the representation of the applicant within three months. The applicant moved a fresh representation which was rejected by an order dated 04.03.2022 mentioning that two criminal cases are pending against the applicant and pensionary benefits cannot be released till the finalisation of criminal cases pending against the applicant. Due to some wrong advice, applicant earlier preferred Writ Petition No.10620/2022 before Hon’ble High

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top