The Delhi High Court has held that the gratuity of a retired government employee can remain withheld while judicial proceedings against him are still pending. The Court said the restriction under Rule 69(1)(c) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 applies not only to departmental proceedings but also to pending judicial proceedings.
Background of the Case
The case concerned Sh. Jamuna Dass, who had worked as a Tax Assistant in the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax. Criminal proceedings were initiated against him while he was in service. He retired on December 31, 2011, and was later convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge, CBI, on January 23, 2012.
Dass challenged the conviction before the Delhi High Court. His criminal appeal, numbered Criminal Appeal 344/2012, remains pending. The High Court had suspended the sentence in July 2012, but the criminal appeal itself had not been decided.
His grievance before the authorities was that his gratuity and leave encashment had been withheld. During the proceedings, however, the issue concerning leave encashment ceased to survive after that amount was released. The dispute before the High Court was therefore confined to gratuity.
Court’s Observation
The Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar examined Rule 69(1)(c), which says gratuity cannot be paid until departmental or judicial proceedings are concluded and final orders are issued.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Bikram Chand Rana v. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, observing that the rule creates a statutory bar on payment of gratuity while either departmental or judicial proceedings remain pending.
"Rule 69(1)(c) of the Pension Rules makes it clear that the restriction on release of gratuity to an employee facing judicial proceedings continues until those judicial proceedings come to an end."
The High Court held that the pending criminal appeal filed by Jamuna Dass was also a judicial proceeding for the purpose of Rule 69(1)(c). It therefore found that the Tribunal had erred by considering only the absence of departmental proceedings while overlooking the pending criminal appeal.
Decision
The Court found no error in the decision to withhold the gratuity while Criminal Appeal 344/2012 remains pending. It also clarified that the employee’s claim for gratuity would revive once the criminal appeal is disposed of.
The Delhi High Court consequently quashed and set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal’s judgment dated October 26, 2018, and allowed the Union of India’s writ petition.
There was no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Sh. Jamuna Dass
Case Number: W.P.(C) 2936/2021, CM APPL. 8830/2021
Judge: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar
Decision Date: August 31, 2026
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
