Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3003 (MAD)

G. Sambandam v. Chief Executive Officer

2014-09-01

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2014
Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to pay the DCRG to the petitioner with interest at 12% per annum. 2. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent Board as Junior Assistant and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent. Thereafter, he was posed as Special Officer and he was due to retire on 30.06.1997. By an order dated 25.06.1997, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that enquiry into grave charges against him was contemplated. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is not paid DCRG. Hence, he has come up with this writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent stating that since judicial proceeding is pending against the petitioner and the same is relating to causing pecuniary loss to the department to the tune of Rs.167.24 lakhs, the petitioner is not entitled to DCRG, as per Rule 69 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. 4. Heard both sides. 5. It is necessary to refer to Rule 69 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which is as follows:- "69. Provisional pension where department or judicial proceeding may be pending:- 1(a) in respect of a Government servant referred to in sub-rule (4) of rule 9, the Head of Office shall pay the provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service up to the date of retirement of the Government servant. (b) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon: 1[Provided that no such gratuity, shall be withheld in respect of a Government servant who has been permitted to retire without prejudice to the departmental or judicial proceedings pending against him, where such departmental or judicial proceedings are only for administrative lapses not involving any pecuniary loss to the Government:] 2[Provided further that where a Government servant, against whom a departmental or judicial proceedings involving pecuniary loss to Government is pending, is permitted to retire without prejudice to such departmental or judicial proceedings, a portion of gratuity may authorized after deducting the maximum computed financial loss to the Government for which the Government servant is held liable, along with un-recovered Government dues if any, of such Government servants, with interest." 6. It is admitted that the petitioner is not permitted to retire. In the cases, where the judicial proceeding pending against a person is only for administrative lapses and not involving any pecuniary loss, the Department cannot withhold the DCRG. But, admittedly, the judicial proceeding pending against the petitioner is not relating to any administrative lapses but that involves pecuniary loss to the department. The petitioner was permitted to retire from service in the year 1997 and criminal proceeding was initiated in 1999, within a period of 4 years as contemplated under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. It is also stated that the criminal proceeding is at the verge of conclusion. If the petitioner gets acquittal, it is needless to state that the petitioner is entitled to get entire DCRG with interest. In view of the fact that judicial proceeding is pending against him, the prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. 7. For all the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.