Orissa High Court
Laxman Behera vs Union Of India And Others ..... Opposite ... on 6 December, 2023
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 39431 of 2023
Laxman Behera ..... Petitioner
Ms. J. Jena, Adv.
Vs.
Union of India and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with
Ms. S. Sahoo, CGC
CORAM:
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
06.12.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
01.
2. Heard Ms. J. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Dy. Solicitor General of
India appearing along with Ms. Sulochana Sahoo, learned Central
Government Counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to set
aside the order dated 27.02.2023 passed in O.A. No. 165 of 2022
vide Annexure-4, by which the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has rejected the claim of the
petitioner with regard to gratuity and commuted value of pension
due to pendency of criminal case against the petitioner.
4. Ms. J. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contended that the petitioner, while working as Postal Assistant
under the opposite parties, retired from service compulsorily as a
measure of punishment, vide order dated 25.02.2019, on
culmination of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him
under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. After his
retirement, though he is entitled to Death-cum-Retirement
Gratuity and Commutation of Pension, but the same was rejected
by the authority, vide order dated 24.01.2022. Aggrieved by the
said order, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing the
Original Application for grant of such benefits, but the Tribunal,
without considering the facts in proper perspective, rejected the
claim of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has approached
this Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Dy. Solicitor General of India
appearing along with Ms. Sulochana Sahoo, learned Central
Government Counsel appearing for the opposite parties
contended that the order of rejection dated 24.01.2022 for release
of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and Commutation of Pension
reveals that on the basis of P.S. Case No.0021/2019, GR Case
No.112 dated 24.10.2019 was instituted against the petitioner,
which is subjudice before the learned SDJM, Talcher. It is further
contended that in terms of Rule 69 (C) of CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972 and Rule-4 of Chapter-II of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the
petitioner is not entitled to DCRG and commute a fraction of his
provisional pension. Therefore, the authority has rightly rejected
the claim of the petitioner, which has been confirmed by the
tribunal. Consequentially, dismissal of the writ petition is sought
for.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the records, this Court finds that as per the
provisions of Rule 69 (C) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and
Rule-4 of Chapter-II of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the
petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of DCRG and
commuted pension due to pendency of the criminal case against
him and, as such, there is no dispute that criminal case is pending
before the learned SDJM, Talcher. Furthermore, in W.P.(C)
No.19169 of 2018 (Union of India and others v. Durga Prasad
Kar), which was filed by the department challenging the order of
the Tribunal, this Court, vide order dated 17.03.2022, considering
the provisions of Rule 69 (C) of CCS (Pension) Rules and
applying the decision of the apex Court in the case of State of
Orissa v. Kalicharan Mohapatra, (1995) 6 SCC 105 and Y.K.
Singla v. Punjab National Bank, (2013) 6 SCC 472, held that
during the pendency of the criminal case, an employee is not
entitled to the gratuity on the face of the statutory provisions.
Since a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, the
authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner, vide order dated
24.01.2022, which has been confirmed by the Tribunal, vide
judgment dated 27.02.2023 in O.A. No. 165/2022, by holding
that the action of the opposite parties for not releasing the DCRG
and commuted value of pension due to pendency of the criminal
case against the petitioner, in view of the statutory provisions of
law cannot be faulted with.
7. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any
error apparent on the face of the order dated 27.02.2023 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack
in O.A. No. 165/2022 under Annexure-4 so as to warrant
interference with the same.
8. Consequentially, the writ petition merits no consideration
and the same is hereby dismissed.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Ashok
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
JUDGE
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 06-Dec-2023 19:06:04
