M D GAUTAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a Senior Auditor who retired from service in January, 1998 from L.A.O. (AF), Agra, had been suspended from service vide order dated 21.1.1994 with retrospective effect, i.e.. 9.11.1993 (Anncxure-1 to the petition). By means of the order dated 7.11.1994. the petitioner was resituated in service, his suspension order having been revoked with immediate effect in exercise of powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-rule (v) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) Rules. 1965. The causative factor of his suspension, as would transpire from the record, was his detention in public custody for a period exceeding 48 hours in a criminal case under Sections 323 and 506. I.P.C. The essence of his grievance is that he Is being paid provisional pension only stemming from the reason that a criminal case under Sections 323 and 506, I.P.C. has been lingering trial in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

(2.) The Instant petition has been filed for the relief of a writ of mandamus for direction to the respondents 2, 3 and 4 to pay gratuity, regular pension, and other retiral benefits studded with 16% interest to the petitioner and also to pay him the increments due with effect from 1993 till the date of retirement. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner's request for grant of regular pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits cannot be taken Into reckoning till finalisation of criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 4140 of 1995 (Case Crime No. 718 of 1993) pending against him in the district courts at Agra. The respondents have taken aid of the provisions contained in Rule 69 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Rule 4 of Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981. As regards leave encashment, C.G.E.I.S. and final settlement of G.P.F. of the petitioner, it has been averred in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has already been paid by the C.D.A. (AF) Dehradun No. AN/1V/3500/ Agra/Gen. Corr., dated 25.9.2000. In respect of medical claims, it has been averred that the same has already been rejected in terms of the C.D.A. (AF) Dehradun "Important Circular No. AN-III/3048/E/West/lI, dated 23.11.1994 and AN-III/0770/XXVII1, dated 7.1.1998 for want of submission of wrappers and empty containers for verification and non-compliance of orders by the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard Sri Vijay Gautam for the petitioner and Sri Shesh Mani Mishra for the respondents. The disputation bears on construction of provisions embodied in Rules 9 and 69 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1974. Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1974 in so far as it is germane to the disputation is excerpted below.