JUDGMENT : D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. Challenge has been made to the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter called “the Tribunal”) in O.A. No.164 of 2015 by allowing the Original Application filed by opp. Party no.1 before the Tribunal. FACTS : 2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the petitioners is that petitioners are authorities under the State of Odisha and opposite party No.1 was an employee under the petitioners. Opposite party No.1 while working as a Senior Geologist in the office of Senior Geologist, Ground Water Survey and Investigation Division, Bhawanipatna under the Department of Water Resources, retired from Government Service w.e.f. 31.01.2002. It is alleged, inter alia, that on the date of his superannuation, G.A. Vigilance Department reported that Cuttack (Vigilance) P.S. Case No.19, dated 16.04.1996 has been registered against opposite party No.1 for possession of disproportionate assets. After submission of charge sheet dated 31.1.2002, the concerned Court took cognizance of the offence on 19.4.2002 in T.R. Case No.24/13 of 2012/2002. 3. It is also stated that another vigilance enquiry was taken up against opposite party No.1 for showing undue favour to a private party. The recommendation for Department proceeding is still awaited in such case. Since the judicial proceeding was pending on the date of his retirement, the opposite party No.1 is entitled only to the provisional pension as per Rule 66(2) of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter called “the Rules”). Under such rule no gratuity or the regular pension can be sanctioned to the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 filed O.A. No.164 of 2015 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal illegally passed order allowing the application of the opposite party No.1 by directing the present petitioners to sanction and disburse final pension along with retiral benefits including the DCRG as due and admissible to the opposite party No.1 within a period of six months. The Tribunal also directed to pay the DCRG to the opposite party No.1 with interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 01.02.2003 till the actual date of payment. Since the order of the Tribunal is illegal and erroneous, the petitioners filed the present writ application before this Court to knockdown the order of the Tribunal. SUBMISSIONS 4. Learned Addl. The Tribunal also directed to pay the DCRG to the opposite party No.1 with interest @7% per annum w.e.f. 01.02.2003 till the actual date of payment. Since the order of the Tribunal is illegal and erroneous, the petitioners filed the present writ application before this Court to knockdown the order of the Tribunal. SUBMISSIONS 4. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State submitted that the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.164 of 2015 is illegal, erroneous and outcome of non-application of mind and against the settled principle of law. It is also submitted that the order of the Tribunal is violative against the principle of natural justice. He further submitted that when the judicial proceeding was pending in a Vigilance Case against the opposite party No.1 on the date of his retirement, he is not entitled to the regular pension under section 7(2) of the Rules but he is entitled to the provisional pension as per Section 66 (1) of the Rules. So he submitted to set aside the judgment of the Tribunal. 5. Per contra, it is submitted by Mr. U.C.Pattnayak, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 that as per Rule 7(2) of the Rules, the judicial proceeding cannot be said to have been pending unless Court has taken cognizance of the offence on the report is submitted by the police. Since in the instant case after retirement of the opposite party No.1, cognizance of offence was taken against the opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 is entitled to the regular pension instead of temporary pension under Rule 66 of the Rules. As such he submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed and quashed. POINT FOR DETERMINATION 6. The only point emerging in this case, as to whether the opposite party No.1 is entitled to retirement benefits including regular pension and DCRG. DISCUSSION 7. It is undisputed fact that the opposite party No.1 was superannuated from Government Service w.e.f. 31.1.2002. It is also admitted fact that Cuttack (Vigilance) Case No.19, dated 16.4.1996 was registered against the opposite party No.1 for possession of disproportionate assets and charge sheet was submitted on 31.1.2002 but the cognizance of offence was taken on 19.4.2002 in T.R. Case No.24/ 13 of 2012/02 by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar. It is also admitted fact that Cuttack (Vigilance) Case No.19, dated 16.4.1996 was registered against the opposite party No.1 for possession of disproportionate assets and charge sheet was submitted on 31.1.2002 but the cognizance of offence was taken on 19.4.2002 in T.R. Case No.24/ 13 of 2012/02 by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted below for better appreciation:- “After hearing the learned counsel for both sides, I note that Rule-66 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 provides that retiral benefits payable to a Govt. servant can be withheld only if any Disciplinary proceeding or Criminal case is pending against him on the date of his retirement. Cognizance of the offence was taken against the applicant in BBSR Vigilance case on 19.4.2002, i.e., more than two months after his retirement. If no other Departmental Proceeding is pending against the applicant as on the date of his retirement, accordingly his retiral benefits cannot be withheld on the ground of pendency of such Vigilance Proceeding. In view of the settled position of law, and as per Rule-66 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, I direct respondent nos.1 and 2 to sanction and disburse the final pension along with retiral benefits including the DCRG as due and admissible to the applicant within a period six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, provided if there is no other legal impediment in terms of pendency of any Disciplinary Proceeding against the applicant. It is also directed that the DCRG payable to the applicant shall carry @7% interest per annum with effect from 01.02.2003 till the date of actual payment. 8. From the impugned order it appears that since cognizance of offence was taken against the opposite party No.1 (applicant before the Tribunal) in Bhubaneswar Vigilance case on 19.04.2002, i.e., more than two months after from his retirement and no other Departmental proceeding was pending against the applicant (opposite party No.1) on the date of his retirement, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed the present petitioners to sanction pension, DCRG and other retiral benefits. Rule 7(2) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 prescribes as hereunder:- “2(a) Such departmental proceedings referred to in Sub-rule(1),if instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service: Provided that when the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority, subordinate to Government that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the Government. (b) Such departmental proceedings as referred to in Sub-rule (1) if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of Government; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service. (c) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. (d) In the case of Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under Clauses (a) and (b), a provisional pension as provided in Rule 66 shall be sanctioned. (e) Where the Government decided not to withhold or withdraw pension but order recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant. (e) Where the Government decided not to withhold or withdraw pension but order recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant. Explanation-For the purpose of this rule- (a) Departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges are issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from the date of his suspension; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made; and (ii) in the case of Civil proceedings, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court.” 9. From the aforesaid provisions, it appears that in case of judicial proceeding, the same shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which complaint or report of police officer of which Magistrate takes cognizance is made. Similarly, in case of the Departmental proceeding, the same shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the statement of charges are issued to the Government Servant or pensioner or in the event of the suspension, same will be taken as instituted from the date of his suspension. In the instant case, it is reiterated that the cognizance of the offence on the charge sheet of the Vigilance Department was taken two months after the retirement of the opposite party No.1. So, we are of the view that judicial proceeding cannot be deemed to have been instituted on the date of retirement of the opposite party No.1. Admittedly, in this case, no Departmental proceeding is pending on the date of retirement as the pendency of the Departmental proceeding is yet to be confirmed. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the case of opposite party No.1 is not covered under Rule 7(2) so as to withhold or withdraw pension to which the opposite party No.1 is entitled after his retirement on 31.01.2002. The point emerging in this case is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION 10. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the case of opposite party No.1 is not covered under Rule 7(2) so as to withhold or withdraw pension to which the opposite party No.1 is entitled after his retirement on 31.01.2002. The point emerging in this case is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION 10. We have already observed in the aforesaid paragraph that no vigilance case is deemed to have been pending against the opposite party No.1 on the date of his retirement. Question of pendency of Departmental proceeding on the date of his retirement is non-est. Rule 66(1) and (2) of the Rules prescribes in following manner:- “Rule-66 (1) Where departmental or judicial proceedings are pending in respect of Government servant on the date of his retirement, referred to in, he shall be paid a 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; or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement up to the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension. (2)-No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the Departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final order thereon; Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 16 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 1962 for imposing any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i),(ii), and (iii-A) of Rule 13 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorized to be paid to the Government servant.” In view of the aforesaid provision read with the Rule 7 of the Rules in the instant case the opposite party No.1 is entitled to the final pension instead of provisional pension as we have already observed that on the date of retirement of opposite party No.1 neither the judicial proceeding nor the Departmental proceeding was pending against him. Similarly, he is also entitled to DCRG as per the order of the Tribunal. On the whole, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. So, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. I. Mahanty, J. : I agree.