Allahabad High Court
UNION OF INIDA AND 3 OTHERSversusPREM NARAYAN AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
A pending criminal appeal does not amount to judicial proceedings "against" the retired railway servant, so pension cannot be withheld and the Tribunal's order stands.
Summary
The Union of India filed a writ petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order that directed the release of a retired railway servant's pension despite a pending criminal appeal against his conviction. The respondent, a former Helper in the North Eastern Railways, had been reinstated after his conviction was set aside as unrelated to his official duties and retired in 2025. The petitioners argued that, under Rules 9 and 10 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (as amended in 2024) and R.B.E. Circular No. 25 of 2004, the pending criminal appeal barred the release of pensionary benefits. The Court examined the wording of Rule 9(3) and the nature of the pending appeal, concluding that the appeal was filed by the respondent and not "against" him, and therefore did not trigger the provisions for withholding pension. It further held that the removal order had been set aside and the respondent had served continuously thereafter, leaving no basis to withhold pension. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether a pending criminal appeal against a railway servant's conviction constitutes "judicial proceedings" that justify withholding pension under Rules 9 and 10 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
- Whether a conviction in a private case unrelated to official duties can be a ground for pension denial after reinstatement and retirement.
- Interpretation of Rule 9(3) of the 1993 Pension Rules and its 2024 amendment concerning provisional pension.
- Whether the petitioners have authority to withhold pension after the removal order was set aside and the servant served until superannuation.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 303, 342, 364, 504
Subjects
- pension
- railway servant
- judicial proceedings
- Rule 9
- Rule 10
- provisional pension
- conviction
- civil service
- Central Administrative Tribunal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14373 of 2026
Union of India and 3 others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Prem Narayan and another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Pradeep Kumar Mishra
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri
Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the sole contesting
respondent no. 1 (‘the respondent’).
2. This writ petition has been filed by Union of India and its officials
challenging the order dated 23.02.2026, whereby the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (‘the Tribunal’)
has allowed Original Application (‘O.A.’) No. 838 of 2025 filed by the
respondent, setting aside the order dated 13.08.2025 impugned therein
and issuing a direction to the petitioners to authorize and release the
respondent’s regular pension in terms of Pension Payment Order
(‘P.P.O.’) dated 29.03.2025 including commutation of pension and arrears
thereof as per the Rules.
3. The respondent was appointed as a Helper in the Mechanical Workshop
of North Eastern Railways, Gorakhpur and he retired from services on
31.03.2025. During period of service, a first information report dated
30.08.1992 under Sections 147, 148, 303, 342, 504, 364 IPC was lodged
against him; he was convicted by the Sessions Court on 24.01.1997 only
under Sections 147 and 364 IPC against which order, he preferred a
criminal appeal before this Court, wherein sentence was suspended and he
was released on bail.
WRIA No. 14373 of 2026
2
4. Consequent upon his conviction, services of the respondent were
terminated on 27.07.1999 under Rule 14(i) of the Railway Servants
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (‘Rules, 1968’), however, the
appellate authority, by order dated 22.11.1999, set aside the punishment
order holding that the conviction of the respondent pertained to a private
matter not connected with railway service. Directions were also issued for
reinstatement of the respondent, pursuant whereto he re-joined his duties
on 24.11.1999 and, after attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on
31.03.2025.
5. Though a P.P.O. dated 29.03.2025 was issued, the petitioners withheld
authorization and release of pension and commutation of pension on the
ground of pendency of the criminal appeal before this Court and an order
came to be passed by them on 13.08.2025 indicating violation of Rules 9
and 10 of the Pension Manual as the reason for non-payment of pension.
It is the said order against which the O.A. giving rise to the present writ
petition was filed, wherein directions were also sought for release and
payment of pension along with interest.
6. The O.A. was contested by the petitioners only on the ground of
pendency of criminal appeal before this Court thereby raising plea of
applicability of Rules 9 and 10 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules,
1993 (‘Pension Rules’). It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that
since criminal appeal is a judicial proceeding, the P.P.O. was rightly not
authorized.
7. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions made before it, arrived
at a conclusion that since the criminal proceedings were unconnected with
official duties of the respondent, the same did not ipso facto justify
withholding of pensionary benefits. The Tribunal further observed that the
respondent was reinstated after consideration of his conviction and,
thereafter, served till his superannuation without any stigma or fresh
WRIA No. 14373 of 2026
3
disciplinary action. The Tribunal, accordingly, allowed the O.A. and
issued directions, already indicated herein-before.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made submissions that since the
respondent has filed a criminal appeal against the order of conviction, the
same amounts to ‘judicial proceedings’ and, therefore, in view of R.B.E.
Circular No. 25 of 2004 read with Rules 9 and 10 of the Pension Rules,
except for provisional pension, the respondent is not entitled to get other
pensionary benefits. Submission is that provisional pension is being paid
to the respondent and unless and until the criminal appeal is decided in
favour of the respondent, no pensionary benefits can be released in his
favour.
9. It has further been argued that the finding of the Tribunal to the effect
that conviction of the respondent was unconnected with his official duties,
is in teeth of Rule 9 itself, wherein words ‘grave misconduct’ have been
used and whether misconduct is in relation to performance of official
duties or otherwise, the same would fall within the meaning of
'misconduct' and, therefore, judicial proceedings pending in the nature of
criminal appeal would be an impediment in release of pensionary benefits
and, hence, the order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the
respondent was punished in departmental proceedings only on account of
his conviction in the criminal case and no judicial proceedings being
pending against him on the date of his retirement, the petitioners cannot
take plea based upon Rules 9 and 10. Further submission has been made
that once the order of removal was already set aside by the appellate
authority by order dated 22.11.1999 and the respondent was reinstated in
service, the punishment order except for the stipulation regarding
treatment of the period from suspension and removal to reinstatement,
does not exist at all and, hence, withholding of pension cannot be
WRIA No. 14373 of 2026
4
justified. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
11. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.
12. Admittedly, the present one is not a case of punishment based upon
departmental inquiry, rather the order of removal passed against the
respondent was based only upon his conviction in the criminal case. On
challenge laid to the said order of removal, the appellate authority allowed
the appeal and set aside the order of punishment in the following terms:-
“As is evident, he was sentenced in a private case not connected
with any loss to the Railway Administration. Thus, I disagree
with the punishment of removal awarded by the D.E.E. (W)
and allow the appeal. He may be taken on duty. The period of
suspension and the period from date he was removed from service
will be decided after the decision of the criminal appeal pending in
Hon’ble High Court Allahabad.”
(emphasis by us)
13. There is no dispute between the parties that pursuant to the order of
appellate authority, the respondent was taken back on duty in 1999 itself
and he retired after serving the department for next 26 years in the year
2025. The criminal appeal against the order of conviction is still pending
before this Court.
14. In light of the above fact situation, if we consider the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioners, it would be appropriate to refer to Rules
9(3) and 10 of the Pension Rule of 1993. The same read as under:-
“9. Right of the President to withhold or withdraw pension.-
(1) (a) The President, in the case of a pensioner who retired from a
post for which the President is the appointing authority;
………..
(3) In the case of a railway servant who has retired on attaining the
age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any
WRIA No. 14373 of 2026
5
departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where
departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a
provisional pension as provided in Rule 96 shall be sanctioned.”
…………………………..
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 not exceeding 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 date
immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under
suspension.
(b) The provisional pension shall be authorised by 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; provided that, where departmental proceedings
have been instituted under the provisions of the Railway Servants
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, for imposing any of the
penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii), (iii-a) and (iv) of Rule 6 of the
said Rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorized to be paid to
the railway servant.”
(emphasis by us)
15. In sub-rule (3) of Rule 9, words ‘against whom any departmental or
judicial proceedings are instituted’ have been used. The said Rule has
been explained in RBE No. 25 of 2004, as relied upon by the petitioners
also. The explanation reads as under:-
“The matter has been examined in consultation with the
Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, the nodal
Department of Government of India on pensionary matters. After
careful consideration of the matter, it has been decided by the
President that since the judicial proceedings pending against a
Railway servant automatically become proceedings under Rule
9 of Pension Rules after his/her retirement, the concerned
disciplinary authority should review such cases at the time of
retirement and satisfy itself as to whether the judicial
proceedings pending against the Railway servant attract any of
the provisions contained in the Railway Servants (Conduct)
Rules 1966, or are in any way prejudicial to the interest of the
WRIA No. 14373 of 2026
6
Railways/Government, and on conclusion of the judicial
proceedings the retired Railway servant shall not have been
fully exonerated and/or the penalty of cut in pension or gratuity
or both, in part, or in full shall have been imposed. If the result
of the review is in the affirmative, it shall be appropriate to
continue the judicial proceedings as deemed proceedings under
Rule 9 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.……..”
(emphasis by us)
16. RBE No. 25 of 2004, thus, refers to judicial proceedings pending
against a Railway servant and its effect on pension after his retirement.
The circular, then, provides for review of such cases where, at the time of
retirement of the Railway servant, judicial proceedings are pending
against him and result of such judicial proceedings. It would also be
relevant to mention that by the time the respondent retired from service in
the year 2025, another RBE No. 5 of 2024 dated 24th June, 2024 issued
by the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India had
come in existence. The same was termed as 'Railway Services (Pension)
Amendment Rules, 2024', which Rules were to operate from the date of
their publication in the official Gazette.
17. By Amendment Rules of 2024, the earlier Rule 9 was substituted and
though most of the language used in the previous Rule 9 and the
substituted Rule 9 is common, sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 incorporates slightly
different language and, for a ready reference, the same is reproduced as
under:-
"Amended Rules, 2024
9. Power to withhold or withdraw pension.-
...........
(3) In the case of railway servant who has retired on attaining the age
of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental
or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental
proceedings instituted under rule 9 of the Railway Servants
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 are continued under sub-rule (2),
a provisional pension as provided in rule 10 shall be sanctioned."
WRIA No. 14373 of 2026
7
18. A perusal of the amended Rule 9(3) indicates that like the unamended
Rule 9 (3), pendency of departmental or judicial proceedings against
railway servant has been treated as a ground for sanctioning only
provisional pension, however, it is the amended Rule that indicates such
sanction as provided in Rule 10. It is, thus apparent that the petitioners, in
the order dated 13.08.2025 impugned before the Tribunal, relied on Rule
10 as the same did not find mention in sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules,
of 1993.
19. Be that as it may, in the present case, no judicial proceedings were
pending against the respondent at the time of his retirement; rather what
was and still is pending is a criminal appeal against order of conviction
which proceeding is ‘by him’ and not ‘against him’ and, therefore,
neither of the two RBE circulars amended or unamended Rule 9 comes
into play.
20. Even otherwise, once we find that the order of removal from service
was based only upon conviction of the respondent and the said
punishment order was set aside by the appellate authority with no further
challenge to the same and the appellate order was already given effect to
by reinstating the respondent in service, the plea raised on behalf of the
petitioners that the grant/release of pension in favour of the respondent
would depend upon the outcome of the pending criminal appeal, cannot
be accepted.
21. If we accept the plea so raised, then in worst case, if the appeal of the
respondent is dismissed upholding his conviction, even in that event the
petitioners would not be competent to pass a fresh order punishing the
respondent after his retirement having taken place in 2025, inasmuch as
no law would vest the petitioners with power to punish/repunish a retired
Railway servant, particularly when the order of his reinstatement, passed
in the year 1999 was passed despite conviction and has remained
unchallenged and has been given effect to in 1999 itself, whereafter the
WRIA No. 14373 of 2026
8
respondent served the department for 26 years and retired.
22. In view of the above discussion, we find that the pleas raised on
behalf of the petitioners are only academic in nature and have, otherwise
also, no substance.
23. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal.
The writ petition has no merit; the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
September 10, 2026
AKShukla/-
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…