Citation : 2010 Latest Caselaw 931 Del
Judgement Date : 17 February, 2010
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.13413/2009
% Date of Decision: 17.02.2010
Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Home .... Petitioner
Affairs
Through Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate.
Versus
Inspector R.P.Tyagi .... Respondent
Through Ms.Archana Gaur, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner, Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Home
Affairs challenges the order dated 30th June, 2009 passed by Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A No.600/2009 titled
Inspector Rishi Prakash Tyagi v. Union of India through the Secretary
directing the petitioner to release provisional pension to the respondent
after 31st January, 2007.
The relevant facts to comprehend the controversies are that the
respondent had retired on superannuation on 30th September, 2002. A
criminal case against the respondent was decided in December, 2006
whereby death penalty was awarded to the respondent. In an appeal
filed to the High Court the death penalty was reduced under Section
304 of Indian Penal Code and against the order of the High Court a
Special Leave Petition is pending.
The departmental proceedings which were initiated against the
respondent under Rule 9(1) has been forwarded to the President for
decision on withholding of pension/gratuity in accordance with rules,
however, no decision has yet been taken by the President.
Though no decision on withholding the pension/gratuity in
compliance with the CCS Pension Rule has been taken, however, after
31st January, 2007 no provisional pension has been paid to the
respondent.
The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the
provisional pension cannot be withheld unless there is an appropriate
order directing withholding the pension. In the circumstances, there is
no decision by the competent authority for withholding the pension.
Consequently, the entitlement of the respondent for provisional pension
under Rule 9(1) as well as Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 cannot
be denied by the petitioner.
The Tribunal in the facts and circumstances has directed the the
petitioner to continue payment of provisional pension to the petitioner
beyond 31st January, 2007 and made good non-payment, if any, by way
of arrears, until final orders are passed in the departmental
proceedings/judicial proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner
is unable to show any role or precedent following which the provisional
pension of the respondent can be stopped. In the circumstances there is
no illegality or irregularity in the decision of the Tribunal directing the
petitioner to continue payment of provisional pension and to pay
arrears of provisional pension beyond 31st January, 2007.
Though the respondent had also prayed for leave encashment,
however, has only directed the petitioner to take any appropriate view in
accordance with the rules and similarly about the payment of interest,
the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to consider about the same in
accordance with law. The direction and in the findings of the Tribunal,
therefore, cannot be faulted in the facts and circumstances.
In the circumstances there are no grounds to interfere with the
order of the Tribunal as no illegality or irregularity has been pointed out
by the learned counsel. The writ petition in the facts and circumstances
is without any merit and it is therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
FEBRUARY 17, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. 'k'
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!