Post retiral dues are not bounty of the State Govt but the valuable rights of your father.

If no Department Inquiry is pending against your father, there was no occasion for the Home Department to withold the post retiral dues of your father.

The State Govt' act of withholding the post retiral dues of your father, is infringing his fundamental rights as available to him under Articles 14, 19 and 21.

Immediately approach the High Court so that these dues are released forthwith.

Need to get acquitted from the said case then he will get every benefit.

Hello sir , as far the case is pending before the lower court , the benefits will stay on hold .. However , you can file a writ in Mumbai high court for relief

Sir please note there is a pending case against your father as such they have right to withhold the benefits. However you can approach jurisdiction high court seeking some relief or to seek for direction for speedy trial of your father's case.

- According to Article 300 A of the Constitution, no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.

- A person cannot be deprived of his pension without the authority of law.

Supreme court held that , It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not bounties. An employee earns these benefits by doing his long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service. Right to receive pension was treated as right to property.”

Further , a State government cannot withhold a part of pension and/or gratuity during the pendency of departmental/criminal proceedings.

Since, the said case against your father is pending and till date the court decision has not declared him accused for punishment , so by stopping the benefits , the department has done illegal acts.

Your father should firstly send a legal notice to the concerned department for releasing the benefits after stating the fact that as per law they cannot withhold the same and their acts are illegal and against the articles of constitution.

Further, if they not release the same , then he should file a case against the said department .

In the case of I.Yesudanam OA-2281/2009 it was held that the leave encashment and other retirement benefits could not be withheld on the ground of pendency of judicial proceedings. In the said case this Tribunal viewed that even during pendency of judicial proceedings, Govt. servant is entitled to release of leave encashment, CGIES and GPF amount payable to him. Relevant excerpt of the order passed in said case read as under:-

11. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in OA-2154/2002, relied upon by the applicant, shows that Sh. J.P. Sharma was suspended on 26.02.2001 under Rule 10(1)(b) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and superannuated on 31.03.2002 whereupon a provisional pension in terms of Rule 69 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 was granted to him. He had sought payment of all retiral dues such as gratuity, leave encashment, full pension etc. with interest although he was involved in a case of embezzlement of government money and FIR was filed with respect to offences under Section 120-B, 420, 468, 477-A, IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of P.C. Act, 1988. Having considered the submissions made and provisions of the various Rules the Tribunal found that while no judicial proceedings could be said to have been instituted or deemed to be so, the applicant having been suspended, departmental proceedings would be deemed to have been instituted against him as per Rule (9)(6)(a) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and therefore on.ly a provisional pension could be paid. Further by reference to Rule 9(4) and 3(o) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in D.V. Kapoor Vs. UOI and Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 314, the Tribunal noted that use of the term pension was in contradistinction to gratuity, and thus gratuity would be payable. Again by a reference to CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, particularly Rule 39(3) thereof it was noted that the competent authority could withhold cash equivalent of earned leave in such a case if there was a possibility of some money becoming recoverable on conclusion of the criminal/disciplinary proceedings. It was held that in absence of such satisfaction of the concerned authority having been expressed by an order in writing, the leave encashment could not have been withheld. In this background the applicant was found to be entitled to leave encashment and gratuity and also to provisional pension only.

12. When this matter was taken to the Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 6465/2003 the Court took note of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Rules 9 and 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The question of leave encashment was not entertained and notice was issued limited to the question of release of gratuity. The Court referred to relevant citations and in particular noted that criminal proceedings start after the filing of the chargesheet before the Court. Having examined the matter from various angles the Court came to the conclusion that in the facts of the case it could not be said that departmental proceedings had been instituted against the applicant therein, as Rule 10(1)(b) relates to suspension in a case where criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial and the suspension which was ordered could not be considered to be relevant to departmental proceedings. Further, the date of suspension viz. 26.02.2001, could not be treated as the date of institution of judicial proceedings either. Thus, to give only provisional pension was found to be unjustified. But, the validity of Rules 9(4) and 69(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, was not found to be questionable. I am therefore not persuaded that these judgments would be of any assistance to the applicant in the facts of the present case, which are at variance, so far as claim for payment of gratuity is concerned.

It has been established by catena of decisison that unless and until any order is passed through a Departmental Proceeding mere pendency of criminal case is no ground to withhold gratuity, leave encashment or Provident Fund.

So apply beofre the Authorised Officer of PF department and if you do not get justice then file writ petition in high court.

in high court you will get all the necessary order directing the department to release his terminal benefits for sure.

Dear Client,

Pension and other such benefits can be hold only if there`s any financial irregularity committed or recovery of fund due.

File appeal in administrative tribunal or in court for release of retirement benefits. Assured remedy.

Has he made written representation in this regard to the top administrative officer of the department?

What was the reply for that?

Did he take any action on the reply denying his dues for the reasons cited therein?

This criminal pending case has nothing to do with retirement benefits that are due to him.

He may file a suit for recovery of all his terminal dues or retirement benefits before a civil court.

Dear Sir,

Mere pendency of criminal case does not vest a right on the department/government to withheld pensionery benefits of an retired official. You may approach High Court seeking relief to issue direction to the department head to release the pensionery/terminal benefits.

The offences alleged appears to be all private and such criminal case might have been registered on the complaint of private person if such is the case then get the case compromised or withdrawn then also your father get all the benefits. Unless the Court order or any departmental enquiry is pending, the department cannot withhold terminal benefits.

You need to contest the case and get acquittal. If the case has stay for the retirement benefits you can challenge the same in appellate court. You can also file writ Petition in HC for challenging the retirement benefits stay.

Hello,

Immediately prefer a writ before the High Court in order to claim the retiral benefits of your father.

Contact a local lawyer

Regards

Pls contact any lawyer in personal