WP(C) 13413 of 2009 Page 1 of 4 * 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 Affairs …. Petitioner 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 allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO 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 WP(C) 13413 of 2009 Page 2 of 4 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. WP(C) 13413 of 2009 Page 3 of 4 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, WP(C) 13413 of 2009 Page 4 of 4 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’