RAJESHWARI CHAUHAN, SUPDT. (RETIRED) Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT DELHI, 5TH LEVEL, DELHI SECRETARIAL, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved with Order No.F.6(5) 2000/DSW/Estt/Pt/6981 dated 3.8.2011 ordering withholding of Rs.1,87,357/ - out of leave encashment amount, the applicant has filed this Application challenging the said order and seeking directions to the respondents to pay to the applicant the amount of leave encashment as admissible to her under the applicable rules.

(2.) The applicant retired on superannuation as Superintendent in the office of respondent no.2 on 30.4.2010. While in service, FIR being FIR No.03/09 was registered by the Anti Corruption Branch of Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 2.2.2009 in which the applicant was implicated. When leave encashment amount was not released to the applicant on her retirement, the applicant filed OA 1336/2011 seeking directions to the respondents to release leave encashment amount to the applicant. The said OA was disposed of at the admission stage itself with directions to the respondents to take a decision in the matter, as the applicant has not been informed of any reason for non -release of leave encashment to her by the respondents, and communicate their decision to the applicant through a reasoned and speaking order on the subject to be issued within the period as stipulated in the Tribunals order dated 13.4.2011. When the Tribunals order was not complied with, the applicant filed CP No.584/2011. When this CP came up for hearing on 23.8.2011, the respondents informed that they have passed order dated 3.8.2011 in compliance with this Tribunals directions, whereupon CP was closed and notices were discharged vide order dated 23.8.2011. The said order dated

(3.) 8.2011 is being impugned by the applicant in these proceedings primarily on the grounds, inter alia, that there was no criminal proceedings pending against her at the time of her retirement in terms of Rule 39 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, and further the impugned order having been passed after about 16 months of the applicants retirement does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 39 of the CCS (Leave) Rules and, therefore, is not sustainable. 3. The applicants claim was controverted by the respondents in their counter reply. The respondents have thus submitted that upon receipt of a copy of the order of this Tribunal dated 26.4.2011 along with OA NO.1336/2011 earlier filed by the applicant in the matter, they processed the case for releasing the leave encashment when they found that two FIRs being No.19/08 dated 24.6.2008 and No.03/09 dated 2.2.2009 had been filed against her by the Anti Corruption Branch. Accordingly, latest status of the cases were sought from the Anti Corruption Branch which in response thereto informed the respondents that chargesheet dated 2.6.2011 had been filed in the Court on 3.6.2011. Thereupon advice of the Law Department was sought regarding release of retirement benefits, including leave encashment, which advised the respondents to consider granting the applicant leave encashment and gratuity taking into consideration the rule position, namely, Rule 9 (6) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, read with Rule 39 (3) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1982, which provide that the authority competent to grant leave may withhold whole or part of cash equivalent of earned leave in the case of a Government servant who retires from service on attaining the age of retirement while under suspension or while disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against him, if in the view of such authority there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against him. Accordingly, the impugned order has been passed. The points raised by the applicant have already been considered by the Law Department of the respondents which reiterated their earlier opinion in view of the fact that chargesheet has filed in the Court after retirement of the applicant.