Anil Raghunath Dubey vs CENTRAL RAILWAY on 4 November 2026

O R D E R

Per: Umesh Gajankush, Member (J):

The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking following reliefs:

(a) That this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 06.05.2022.

(b) That this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondent to grant provisional pension pending the judicial proceeding before the JMFC, Thane in DV Case No. 68/2018.

(c) Such other reliefs to which the Applicant is found entitled to may be granted.

(d) Saddle the cost of this application on the respondents.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the applicant was working as Sr. Section Engineer under the ancillary wing of Diesel Shed Kalyan, wherein after putting in 24 years and 6 months of service he sought voluntary retirement which was granted on 24.02.2022.

2.1. It is stated that the wife of the applicant had preferred Domestic Violence case D.V. No. 66/2018, wherein as per order dated 01.04.2022, the Hon’ble by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

Judicial Magistrate was pleased to stay the disbursement of the retiral benefit pending adjudication. Acting on the stay order, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 06.05.2022.

2.2. It is stated that the action of the respondents in not granting provisional pension pending the judicial proceedings, is in complete violation of Rule 10 of Railway Service Pension Rules (1993) and Right to Livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

2.3. It is stated that Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate’s order dated 01.04.2022 merely directed that disbursement of retiral benefit be stayed, the said order did not deny the payment of provisional pension to the applicant. Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deokinandan Prasad vrs State of Bihar (1971) 2 SCC 330, State of Jharkand vrs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (2013) 12 SCC 210 and P S Bhargava vrs Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 637, which mandates release of provisional pension pending proceedings.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

2.4. It is further submitted that although the impugned communication was issued on 06.05.2022, however the cause of action is recurring each month when the pension becomes payable. Therefore, it is submitted that OA may be allowed and appropriate order be passed.

3. After notice, the respondents have filed reply and contested the OA on the ground that the applicant’s proposal of taking Voluntary Retirement from Railway Service was initiated and the process for settlement of retirement dues was expedited as per Rules. However, settlement could not be finalized since his spouse had filed a DV Case No. 66/2018, before the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court in Thane wherein passed a specific stay order dated 01.04.2022 was passed restraining disbursement of final retirement benefits and directed issuance of notice to DRM, CSMT, Mumbai and the same was communicated to the applicant vide office letter dated 06.05.2022.

3.1. It is submitted that as per the process for settlement of retirement dues, the Settlement Book, is by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

required to be filed by the employee himself as per rules, and the same was submitted by the applicant with the following particulars which were defective and suspicious namely: (a) the columns relating to details of family members was struck off and no family particulars were furnished; (b) Single particulars for himself only were submitted; (c) Joint photograph with spouse was not affixed and (d) Names of children, if any, were not disclosed in the prescribed columns.

3.2. It is stated that in view of the above defective and suspicious settlement formalities details tendered by the applicant along with the pending judicial proceedings, the respondents acted strictly as per rules and could not finalize settlement of retirement dues.

3.3. On the basis of the reply, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that as per Railway Servant Pension (Rules), 1993, the competent authority is obliged to grant provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceeding may be pending. However, in spite of granting the voluntary retirement vide communication dated 24.02.2022 till date no amount of provisional pension has been released to the applicant, thereby the respondents are depriving the applicant from his livelihood which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.

6. On the other hand on the basis of reply, the respondents have submitted that since there is a specific order from the Court of Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate and therefore vide communication dated 06.05.2022, it was informed to the applicant accordingly.

6. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vrs M H Majumdar (1988) 2 SCC 52, Bikram Chand Rana vrs Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation 2026 SCC

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

OnLine SC 535, Secretary, Forest Department & ors vrs Abdur Rasul Chowdhury (2009) 7 SCC 305, State of West Bengal vrs Haresh C. Banerjee & ors (2006) 7 SCC 651. Therefore, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that vide communication dated 24.02.2022 (Annexure A/2), the competent authority has accepted voluntary retirement of the applicant. By impugned communication dated 06.05.2022, the authority informed the applicant that his settlement dues has been withheld in terms of order dated 01.04.2022 as per the order of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane. 8. At this stage, it is relevant here to reproduce rule 10 of Railway Pension Rules which reads as under:,

10. Provisional Pension where departmental or judicial proceedings may be pending.

1. a. In respect of a railway servant referred to in sub-rule (3) of Rule 9, the Accounts Officer shall authorise the provisional pension equal to the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service up to the date of retirement of the railway servant or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement, up to the by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension.

b. The Provisional pension shall be authorised by the Accounts Officer during the period commencing from the date of retirement up to and including the date on which, after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings, final orders are passed by the competent authority.

c. No gratuity shall be paid to the railway servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon.

(d) the provisions of this rule shall not be applicable where allegations of misconduct are under investigation against a railway servant or where departmental or judicial proceedings are contemplated against a railway servant but have not actually been instituted or deemed to have been instituted in accordance with explanation to rule 9, till the date of retirement of the railway servant and the pension and gratuity in such cases shall be authorized to be paid to the railway servant on his retirement in accordance with rule 85: Provided that any departmental proceedings instituted after retirement of the railway servant shall be subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 9.

2. Payment of provisional pension made under sub-rule (1) shall be adjusted against final retirement benefits sanctioned to such railway servant upon conclusion of such proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period.

9. Looking into the Rule 10 1(b) it is clear that the provisional pension shall be authorized till conclusion of departmental or judicial proceeding and final orders are passed by the competent authority. In the present case, the DV Case No. 66/2018 was pending as per order dated 01.04.2022 but fact remains that what is the actual position of the said case, as of now, has not been brought by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

to the notice of this Tribunal by the parties. Whether the said case is decided finally or not. Even otherwise after receipt of communication dated 06.05.2022, it appears that no representation was submitted by the applicant before the competent authority for release of provisional pension in terms of Rule 10 of Railway Servant (Pension) Rules, 1993 and straight way came to this Tribunal by filing this Original Application after three years. Although even for getting the provisional pension, right is accrued to the concerned employee every month when it becomes payable.

10. Under these circumstances, the applicant is at liberty to file appropriate representation before the Respondent No. 2 for releasing the provisional pension as per Rules, by taking all available ground for release of the same within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

11. In case, such representation is filed by the applicant, the respondent no. 2 is directed to consider and by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

decide the representation as per law/rules. The whole exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days.

12. With the aforesaid the OA is disposed of with no order as to cost. Pending, MA’s stand disposed of.

(Umesh Gajankush)

Member (J) (sadish) Digitally signed by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR