Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 670 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. State of Karnataka

2022-05-25

B.VEERAPPA, K.S.HEMALEKHA

body2022
ORDER 1. The State has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 23/08/2018, passed in O.A.No.170/00502/2017, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal ('the CAT' for short), allowing the original application directing the present petitioners to release the entire DCRG, commuted value of pension and all other pensionary benefits to the applicant within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. It is the case of the State Government/ petitioners that respondent No.1/M.S.Ravishankar, IAS, a retired officer, while working as a Managing Director in M/s. My Sugar Company Limited (an organization under the Government of Karnataka) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' for the sake of convenience) from 16/07/2001 to 19/09/2002 allegedly caused a loss of Rs.62,42,000/- to the company in a deal of supply of sugar to the Food Corporation of Nepal in collusion with M/s.Indo Foreign Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Bombay, contrary to the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners/State Government that respondent No.1 had authorized a sub-agent namely M/s. Om Impex Limited at Nepal to receive, sign the tender document, submit the tender and sign the contract on behalf of the company's agent M/s. Indo-Foreign Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and allowed to do all acts regarding export of sugar without entering into any proper legal/commercial agreement with the said sub-agent while not being empowered to do so. He failed to take reasonable precautions to safeguard the interest of the Company and as a consequence of cancellation of contract, the Company suffered a loss of Rs.62,42,000/- which is directly attributable to the failure of respondent No.1 to guide the business transaction appropriately which amounted to gross negligence and dereliction of duty. Thereby, the departmental proceedings were initiated against respondent No.1 and a show-cause notice dated 24/07/2008 was issued under Rule 8 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 on the charge of alleged misconduct while working as Managing Director of the Company. 4. Thereby, the departmental proceedings were initiated against respondent No.1 and a show-cause notice dated 24/07/2008 was issued under Rule 8 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 on the charge of alleged misconduct while working as Managing Director of the Company. 4. Respondent No.1 failed the reply to the show-cause notice and was again given extension of time for providing reply several times and ultimately, the State Government, by letter dated 23/03/2009, informed respondent No.1 that on failure to comply with the notice issued, the Government will have to presume that he has no explanation and the Government has to proceed to pass ex parte order in accordance with law. Since there was no reply from respondent No.1, the State Government, exercising powers conferred under Rule 8(2) of All India Services (D & A) Rules appointed an enquiry officer and a presenting officer vide Government Order bearing No.DPAR 203 SAS 2008 dated 07/07/2009. 5. Being aggrieved by the action of the State Government, respondent No.1 filed an application in O.A.No.363/2009 before the CAT, Bengaluru. After hearing the parties, the CAT vide order dated 11/02/2013 allowed the application and quashed the impugned order therein directing the respondents that the inquiry may now commence de novo from the point on which day it issued the show-cause notice and all the documents sought by the applicant to be served on him within two weeks from the date of the order and issued five directions. 6. The order passed by the CAT has reached finality. It is further stated that on 20.03.2013 second show-cause notice was issued and reminders were issued on 15.04.2013, 22.01.2014 and 04.03.2014. Finally, respondent No.1 filed his reply on 20.03.2014 and sought to drop the proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner came to be retired from service on 31.03.2015 after attaining the age of superannuation and the provisional pension was sanctioned, but not paid the pensionary benefits. Finally, respondent No.1 filed his reply on 20.03.2014 and sought to drop the proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner came to be retired from service on 31.03.2015 after attaining the age of superannuation and the provisional pension was sanctioned, but not paid the pensionary benefits. Therefore, respondent No.1/M.S.Ravishankar was constrained to file O.A.No.170/502/2017 before the CAT contending that while he was working as Managing Director in M/s.Mysore Sugar Company Limited from 16.07.2001 to 19.09.2002, preliminary inquiry held during the year 2008 by the Administrative Department i.e., Department of Commerce & Industries through Sri K.M.Shivakumar, IAS, who was working as Commissioner for Industrial Development and Director of Industries & Commerce on the issues pertaining to export of sugar to Nepal and financial loss caused to the My sugar Company Limited and in the inquiry report dated 27.06.2003, a clear finding was given stating that the Managing Director (applicant), M.S. Ravishankar had taken steps to actively explore the export market and it is at that level of professional officers in the company that a very serious failure has occurred. Thereby, the applicant was exonerated in the preliminary inquiry as early as in 2003, without taking any action on the officers of the Company. Inspite of directions issued by the CAT vide order dated 11/02/2013, inquiry was not initiated nor appointed a new enquiry officer to conclude the enquiry with some conditions and within a stipulated time and the applicant retired on 31.03.205 during the pendency of the inquiry and the DCRG and commuted value of pension were not given to him. Hence, the applicant requested for impleading Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi and Principal Accountant General, Karnataka as additional respondents, thereby, he sought a direction to direct the respondents to release the amount and other consequential benefits to the applicant in accordance with the entitlement. After reply filed by the State Government, the Tribunal vide order dated 23/08/2018, allowed O.A.No.170/ 00502/2017 and directed the respondents to release the entire DCRG, commuted value of pension and all other pensionary benefit to the applicant within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Hence, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. Hence, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. Sri Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader, contended with vehemence that as the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the State to release the entire DCRG, Commuted Value of Pension and all other pensionary benefits to the applicant-1st respondent is erroneous and contrary to law, cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. He would contend that due to the negligence and dereliction of duty by the 1st respondent while he was discharging his duty as Managing Director of My Sugar Company has resulted in huge financial loss of Rs.62,42,000/- and inspite of several opportunities provided to the 1st respondent, he has not chosen to give his reply to the show cause notice and under the circumstances, the State Government is at liberty to proceed against the 1st respondent in accordance with law. He further contended that length of time for initiating the disciplinary proceedings is not the criteria, to state that the 1st respondent will not be in a position to defend himself, is untenable and thus the Tribunal has erred in stating that though several years have been lapsed, the State Government has failed to initiate any action against the 1st respondent and as such, the 1st respondent is entitled for the relief as sought for by him, which has resulted in injustice to the State Government. 9. The learned High Court Government Pleader further contended that inspite of the clear direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.S.No.363/2009 and though several opportunities were provided to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent has not chosen to visit the Office of the Department to get the records, which were necessary for him to give reply to the Show Cause Notice, and thereafter to file reply. Thereby, he is not entitled to contend that the disciplinary action cannot be initiated against him belatedly. So also the Central Administrative Tribunal has erred in accepting his contentions and allowing the application and directing the State Government to release the pensionary benefits. Thereby, he is not entitled to contend that the disciplinary action cannot be initiated against him belatedly. So also the Central Administrative Tribunal has erred in accepting his contentions and allowing the application and directing the State Government to release the pensionary benefits. He would further contend that the impugned order passed by the trial Court directing the State to release pensionary benefits i.e., the entire DCRG and Commuted Value of Pension amounts and all consequential benefits is contrary to All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition. 10. Per contra, Sri A.S. Ponnanna, learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent while justifying the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal contended that though preliminary enquiry was held during the year 2003 by the Department of Commerce and Industries, State of Karnataka, Sri K.M. Shivakumar, I.A.S., Commissioner of Commerce and Industries Department, who summoned Sri M.S. Ravishankar. Sri Govind Bhat, I.A.S., the then Director of Sugar and Member of Board of Director of Mysugar Company, the Commercial Manager and other Officers of the Company after holding detailed enquiry by the report dated 27.6.2003 exonerated the 1st respondent by recording a finding that the Managing Director - the present 1st respondent-Mysugar had taken steps to actively explore the export market, but it was at the level of Professional Officers in the Company that, a very serious failure has occurred. The said aspect has not been considered. He would further contend that the applicant being harassed unnecessarily by not releasing his legally entitled pensionary benefits i.e., entire DCRG and Commuted Value of Pension (CVP) amounts and all consequential benefits amounting to Rs.13,10,319/-, though 8 years have elapsed from the date of retirement. 11. It is further contended that alleged incidence pertains to the year 2001 and when show cause notice was issued, the same was challenged, which was subject matter of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 363/2009 and the Central Administrative Tribunal by the order dated 11.2.2013, disposed of the original application and quashed the said notice directing the State to complete the enquiry within three month from the date of order, but the same has not been done. Though the 1st respondent retired from service on 31.3.2015, his legally entitled pensionary benefits are not paid and thereby, he was forced to file O.S.170/00502/2017 for the relief sought for. 12. Though the 1st respondent retired from service on 31.3.2015, his legally entitled pensionary benefits are not paid and thereby, he was forced to file O.S.170/00502/2017 for the relief sought for. 12. Since the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal has not been complied with, the 1st respondent filed Civil Contempt Petition 102/2019 in Original Application No.170/00502/2017 22.8.2019 and the same is pending adjudication before the Tribunal. 13. The learned Senior Counsel Sri A.S. Ponnanna for respondent No.1 would further contend that initiation of enquiry at this stage, after the lapse of 22 years against the 1st respondent is very prejudicial and admittedly, even today, after the impugned orders are passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 13.2.2013 or on 23.8.2018 and no such disciplinary proceeding is initiated till today. Thereby the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in directing the present petitioner-State to release the pensionary benefits - DCRG, Commuted Value of Pension and other consequential benefits to the 1st respondent. He would further contend that admittedly, the 1st respondent retired from service on 31.3.2015 and it is not now open for the State to initiate Departmental Enquiry, at this stage, and withholding of DCRG and Commuted Value of Pension, is impermissible. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 14. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Prakash Tewari -vs-U.P.Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and Others in Civil Appeal No.5848 to 5849/2014 dated 30th June, 2014. 15. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the parties, the points that would arise for our consideration are: "i) Whether the petitioner/State has made out a case to quash the impugned order dated 23.8.2018 passed in O.A.No.502/3017 by the Central Administrative Tribunal as per Annexure-C? and ii) Whether the petitioner/State can deprive the pensionary benefits to a retired person in the facts and circumstances of the present case?" 16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 17. and ii) Whether the petitioner/State can deprive the pensionary benefits to a retired person in the facts and circumstances of the present case?" 16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 17. It is an undisputed fact that the applicant while working as a Managing Director of Mysugar Company from 16.7.2001 to 19.9.2002 on the allegation made by the present petitioner that the 1st respondent/applicant has caused a loss of Rs.62,42,000/- to the Company in a deal for supplying sugar to the Food Corporation of Nepal, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry regarding non supply of sugar of Mysore Sugar Company to the Food Corporation of Nepal as per the agreement. In the report dated 27.6.2003 of the Enquiry Officer, it is specifically stated at paragraphs-18 and 19 as under: "18. From all these factors, it is clear that, it was very necessary to very carefully explore the possibility of export of Sugar. However, the appointment of an Agent through whom the Export of Sugar was to take place, has not been approved by the Board nor have precautions been taken about how to face the situation when the agent does not act in a manner which is in the beneficial interest of the company. The Managing Director, Mysugar, has taken steps to actively explore the export market, but I believe that it is at the level of Professional Officers in the Company that, a very serious failure as occurred. Especially Sri M.H. Jagadish, Manager (Commercial) should have guided the Managing Director, in view of the fact that on he has specialisation in the field. Instead of that, even a Note Sheet has not been maintained about the day-today happenings at that point of time nor has he advised the Managing Director. Mysugar, about the various issues involved in appointment of an agent and the kind of duties and responsibilities that have to be assigned to the Agent with some kind of performance guarantee from the agent. The primary responsibility has to necessarily rest with Sri M.H. Jagadish, Manager (Commercial). 19. I am given to understand that, the above said Officer is on contract basis. The primary responsibility has to necessarily rest with Sri M.H. Jagadish, Manager (Commercial). 19. I am given to understand that, the above said Officer is on contract basis. It will be in the interest of the company to forthwith give whatever notice is necessary to be given and get rid of his services. The company should explore the possibility of appointing an Export Manager/Deputy General Manager, who has special knowledge of exports in view of the fact that, sugar exports will gain increasing importance in the company's affairs." 18. When the things stood thus, the petitioner-State without even taking any action on the enquiry report which was in favour of the applicant, issued a show cause notice and appointed an Enquiry Officer for conducting enquiry against the applicant-1st respondent. Thereby, the 1st respondent was compelled to file O.A.No.363/2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. At the first instance, the Central Administrative Tribunal by the order, dated 13.8.2009, granted an interim order of stay of further proceedings and after hearing both parties, by the order dated 11.2.2013 disposed off the original application by recording its finding at paragraph-7 issuing directions as under: "7. xxxxxxxxxx 1. We hereby quash the impugned order and direct the respondents that the inquiry may now commence denovo from the point on which day it issued the show cause notice; 2. All the documents sought by the applicant to be served on him within 2 weeks from today; 3. Another Inquiry Officer shall be appointed if the respondents feel that after receipt of the reply that an inquiry is required in public interest But needless to say that if they feel that there is no need to proceed against the applicant in this matter, they will be free to drop the proceedings against the applicant at this point of time; 4. If the respondent is not satisfied with the reply of the applicant, then under a new Inquiry Officer, the inquiry shall commence and conduct its proceedings day-to-day within one month from the date of supply of documents to the applicant and shall conclude within the next three months. The applicant shall cooperate with the inquiry and the respondents shall afford all necessary opportunities for the applicant also; 5. From the list of witnesses, the three persons M.H. Jagadish, Mohankumar and Thimme Gowda shall be excluded as they are also involved prejudicially in this act. The applicant shall cooperate with the inquiry and the respondents shall afford all necessary opportunities for the applicant also; 5. From the list of witnesses, the three persons M.H. Jagadish, Mohankumar and Thimme Gowda shall be excluded as they are also involved prejudicially in this act. Since they have no nexus with the Government, it is not expected that their evidence will, other than clouding the scenario, their presence cannot further the cause of finding out the truth as they are to be accused otherwise." Thereby, the Central Administration Tribunal quashed the notice and directed the respondents therein-petitioner herein to commence the denovo enquiry from the day on which show cause notice was issued and the applicant to be served with all the documents within two weeks thereof and if the petitioner is satisfied with the reply of the applicant-respondent No.1, new enquiry shall be commenced and day-to-day proceedings be conducted within one month from the date of supply of documents to the applicant/1st respondent herein and shall conclude within the next three months thereof. The said order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal has reached finality. 19. The State Government-petitioner has neither initiated/ conducted nor concluded any enquiry as directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal as long back as on 11.2.2013 and admittedly, the 1st respondent retired from service on 30.1.2015, but till today, his pensionary benefits are not released to him to which he is legally entitled. Thereby, he was constrained to file O.A. No.170/00502/2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, who after hearing both parties, by the order dated 23.8.2018 allowed the application holding that the 1st respondent is entitled for the entire DCRG, commuted value of pension and all other pensionary benefits from the petitioner on attaining superannuation with effect from 31.3.2015. Even after passing of the said by the Central Administrative Tribunal and after the lapse of 22 years from the date on which the 1st respondent was alleged to have caused loss to the Mysugar Company, the petitioner except preferring the present writ petition against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing it to release the pensionary benefits - entire DCRG, Commuted value of pension and all other consequential benefits, no other proceedings are initiated. 20. 20. It is also not in dispute that the allegations against the 1st respondent pertains to the year 2001 and a direction was issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal to conduct the day-to-day enquiry proceedings within one month from the date of supply of documents to the applicant and conclude the enquiry within three months thereof, who had retired on 31.3.2015 and by the order dated 23.8.2018 disposed of the application 170/00502/2017 and directed the State-petitioner to release the entire DCRG, Commuted Value of Pension and all other Pensionary Benitifs, but the same has not been done, thereby the 1st respondent was compelled to file CCC 102/2019 on 22.8.2019 and the same is pending adjudication before the Court. As such, even after a lapse of 22 years from the date on which allegation was made against the 1st respondent, the petitioner has not initiated any disciplinary proceedings as directed by the Tribunal till today. 21. It is also not in dispute that The All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 apply to the facts of this case as the 1st respondent, is appointed to the service under the Indian Administrative Services. Rules 6(1)(b)(ii) and (c) of the said Rules which read as under: "6. Recovery from pension. 6(1) The Central Government reserves to itself the right of withholding a pension "gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Central or a State Government, if the pensioner is found in a departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to the Central or a State Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement: Provided that no such order shall be passed without consulting the Union Public Service Commission: Provided further that (a) such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the pensioner was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the pensioner, be deemed to be a proceeding under this sub-rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the pensioner had continued in service. (b) such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the pensioner was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment; (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Central Government: (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place or places as the Central Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceeding on which an order of dismissal from service may be made; (c) Such judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the pensioner was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall not be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution. On careful reading of the said provision, it makes clear that if the departmental proceeding is not instituted while the pensioner was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, the same shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Central Government and shall be in respect of an event which took place "not more than four years" before the institution of such proceedings and such judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the pensioner was in service whether before his retirement or during his re employment shall not be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution. 22. Admittedly, the show cause notice was issued and an Inquiry Officer was also appointed at the first instance which was the subject matter of Original Application No. 363/2009 and the Central Administrative Tribunal by the order dated 11.2.2013 quashed the show cause notice and directed to the petitioner to commence the inquiry denovo from the point on which it issued the show cause notice; and conduct the day-today proceedings within one month from the date of supply of documents to the applicant and shall conclude within the next three months from the date of its order. Even till today that too after a lapse of 22 years, the petitioner-State has not initiated any proceedings nor has challenged the earlier order 11.2.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Even till today that too after a lapse of 22 years, the petitioner-State has not initiated any proceedings nor has challenged the earlier order 11.2.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Considering that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings was on the allegation of the year 2001 and even till today i.e., after lapse of more than 22 years, as disciplinary proceedings have not been initiated, the same is prohibited and impermissible in view of the provisions of Rule 6(1)(b)(ii) and (c) of the Rules as stated supra. Our view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Dev Prakash Tewari v. U.P. Coop. Institutional Service Board, reported in 2014(7) SCC 260 wherein at paragraphs-8, 9 and 10, it is held as under: "8. Once the appellant had retired from service on 31-3-2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retiral benefits." "9. The question has also been raised in the appeal with regard to arrears of salary and allowances payable to the appellant during the period of his dismissal and up to the date of reinstatement. Inasmuch as the inquiry had lapsed, it is, in our opinion, obvious that the appellant would have to get the balance of the emoluments payable to him." "10. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the judgment and order [Dev Prakash Tewari v. U.P. Coop. Institutional Service Board, Writ Petition (S/B) No. 1919 of 2009, order dated 18-12-2009 (All)] of the High Court are set aside and the respondents are directed to pay arrears of salary and allowances payable to the appellant and also to pay him his all the retiral benefits in accordance with the rules and regulations as if there had been no disciplinary proceeding or order passed therein. No costs." 23. No costs." 23. It is also an undisputed fact that the 1st respondent retired from service on 31.3.2015 after attaining the age of superannuation and as long back as on 11.2.2013, the Central Administrative Tribunal by the order dated 11.2.2013 directing the State to make all documents available to the 1st respondent; appoint a new enquiry officer and to conclude the enquiry with some conditions within a stipulated time. Subsequently, by the order dated 23.8.2018, the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay the entire DCRG, Commuted Value of Pension and all other pensionary benefits to the employee-1st respondent which was erroneously withheld without awarding interest for which the 1st respondent was legally entitled for withholding illegally, without initiating any Departmental Proceedings. As there is a miscarriage of justice in denying the interest to be paid by the petitioner to the 1st respondent from the date of attaining the age of superannuation till the date of payment, this Court has to exercise its appellate jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, the 1st respondent is entitled to the pensionary benefits with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of retirement (31.3.2015) till payment both on the amount of pension due and the gratuity amount which are to be payable to the petitioner. 24. Our view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.D.Tewari (D) Through Legal Representatives -vs- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894 . So also in the case of O.P. Gupta -vs- Union Of India reported in AIR 1987 SC 2257 wherein at paragraphs-22A and 23 it is held as under: "22A. The public interest in maintaining the efficiency of the services requires that civil servants should not be unfairly dealt with. The government must view with concern that a departmental inquiry against the civil servant should have been kept alive for so long as 20 years or more and that he should have been placed under suspension without any lawful justification for as many as 11 years, without any progress being made in the departmental inquiry. It should also view with concern that a decision should have been taken by the competent authority to enforce the bar under FR 25 against the civil servant long after his retirement with a view to cause his financial loss. It should also view with concern that a decision should have been taken by the competent authority to enforce the bar under FR 25 against the civil servant long after his retirement with a view to cause his financial loss. Such a course not only demoralises the services but virtually ruins the career of the delinquent officer as a government servant apart from subjecting him to untold hardship and humiliation. We hope and trust that the government in future would ensure that departmental proceedings are concluded with reasonable diligence and not allowed to be protracted unnecessarily. The government should also view with concern that there should be an attempt on the part of the competent authority to enforce the bar against a civil servant under FR 25 long after his retirement without affording him an opportunity of a hearing. It comes of ill grace from the government to have defeated the just claim of the appellant on technical pleas." "23. Normally, this Court, as a settled practice, has been making direction for payment of interest at 12 per cent on delayed payment of pension. There is no reason for us to depart from that practice in the facts of the present case." 25. In view of the above, the points raised in the present writ petition are answered in the negative holding that the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.8.2018 passed in O.A.No.502/3017 by the Central Administrative Tribunal as per Annexure-C and as such, the petitioner/State cannot deprive the pensionary benefits to a retired person in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 26. For the reasons stated above, we pass the following: ORDER i) Writ Petition filed by the State is dismissed as being devoid of any merit; and ii) It is needless to observe that the State shall take necessary steps to ensure that the pensionary and consequential benefits along with interest in terms stated supra shall be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.