HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 14 / 2017
Shiv Kumar Arora S/o Late Shri Girdhari Lal,, Aged About 62
Years, Plot No. A-50B, Jai Ambey Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur
—-Appellant
Versus
1. Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head
Office, Jaipur

2. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,
Head Office, Jaipur

3. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,,
Sikar
—-Respondents

__
For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinayak Joshi
__
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
24/05/2017

In D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.409/2017:

The application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with

Section 151 CPC is allowed.

In D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.5/2017:

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in

filing the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed.

In D.B. Special Appeal(W) No.14/2017:

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

(2 of 3)
[SAW-14/2017]

2. Regulation 5 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport

Corporation Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 reads as

under:-

“5. (1) Where any departmental or judicial
proceeding is instituted under the Regulations or Where
a departmental proceedings is continued under
clause(a) of the proviso thereto against an employee
who has retired on attaining the age of compulsory
retirement or otherwise, he shall be paid during the
period commencing from the date of his retirement to
the date on which, upon conclusion of such
proceedings, final orders are passed, a provisional
pension not exceeding the maximum pension which
would have been admissible on the basis of his
qualifying service upto the date of retirement or if he
was under suspension on the date of retirement, upon
the date or immediately proceeding the date on which
he was placed under suspension, but no gratuity shall
be paid to him until the conclusion of such proceeding
and the issue of final order thereon.

(2) Payment of provisional pension made under
sub-rule (1) shall be adjusted against the final
retirement benefits sanctioned to such employee upon
conclusion of the aforesaid 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.”

3. Admittedly the appellant is facing trial for an offence

punishable under Section 354 IPC. The complainant is a

subordinate lady employee of the Corporation.

4. Gratuity has been withheld pending outcome of the

criminal trial.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon an Office

Memorandum dated March 24, 2003 issued by the Government of

India, Ministry of Communications Information Technology,

Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi. As per the Office
(3 of 3)
[SAW-14/2017]

Memorandum, a Government servant under the Union of India

would be entitled to all pensionary dues notwithstanding the

criminal proceedings pending against him where the initiation of

the criminal proceedings is by a private person.

6. Based thereon the argument is that similar benefit

ought to be granted to the employees of the Corporation.

7. In our opinion, the argument is misplaced. If the

Government of India has taken a decision for its employees, that

does not mean that the said decision would be applicable to the

employees of the Corporation as well.

8. Highlighting that the criminal proceedings are pursuant

to a complaint lodged by an employee of the Corporation and the

charge is for an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, we find

no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

9. The learned Single Judge has held that if at the

conclusion of the criminal trial the gratuity becomes payable, the

same would have to be released.

10. The writ-appeal is accordingly dismissed.

11. No costs.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),C.J.

KKC/2