2025:HHC:24817 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1087 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Prakash Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved2025:HHC:24817 for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2/State. Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3 __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Precisely, the question, which needs to be determined in the case at hand, is that “whether service dues, if any, of retired Government employee, can be withheld on account of pendency of criminal proceedings against him, especially when he stands exonerated in disciplinary proceedings or not?” 2. Facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that petitioner joined the respondent-Forest Department as Forest Guard at Chhajpur Range of the Jubbal Forest Division on 14.11.1986. Subsequently, in the year 2013, he came to be promoted as Deputy Ranger. After his being 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:24817 2 promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger, he was posted with the Tuti Kandi Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre of the respondents under the Wild Life Division, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. In October 2016, petitioner was posted as Block Officer with the Koti Range of Shimla Forest Division, where he remained posted for about ten months and then transferred to Chharabra Shimla Water Catchment Wild Life Range, Dhalli, Shimla under Wild Life Division, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in August 2017. 3. Promotion of the petitioner was withheld by the Department, due to which he was constrained to file CWP No.8170 of 2022 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 28.12.2022. Pursuant to afore order passed by Division Bench of this Court, petitioner was granted promotion as Forest Range Officer, after his superannuation on 31.12.2022. After petitioner’s retirement, a suo motu CWPIL No.45 of 2018 was entertained by the Principal Division Bench of this Court with regard to illegal felling of 416 trees in the Koti Forest Range, where petitioner also remained posted for a short tenure of ten months. In departmental proceedings, petitioner came to be exonerated, however, criminal proceedings initiated against him are still pending. 4. Though petitioner was denied promotion to the post of Range Forest Officer on account of pendency of departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings, however, as has been taken note hereinabove, this Court allowed CWP No.8170 of 2022 filed 2025:HHC:24817 3 by the petitioner, thereby directing respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner, which direction was complied with and petitioner herein came to be appointed as Range Forest Officer by the Department after his superannuation on 31.12.2022. 5. Now, precisely the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner is that retiral benefits are not being released to the petitioner on account of pendency of criminal case. While referring to order dated 07.03.2023 passed in CWP No.7487 of 2021, titled Hari Singh Vs. State of H.P. and Others, Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, states that the person namely Hari Singh, who stands indicted in disciplinary proceedings, has been granted all retiral benefits, pursuant to directions passed by this Court, but same are being denied to the petitioner on account of pendency of criminal case against him. He states that since Rule 39(3) of Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, clearly provides that if in the view of such authority, there is a possibility of some amount becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings, he shall become eligible to the amount so withheld after adjustment of Government dues, if any, but in the instant case, no amount, if any, would be recoverable from the petitioner, even if it is presumed that he is convicted in criminal proceedings. If it is so, 2025:HHC:24817 4 there is no occasion, if any, for respondents to withhold the retiral benefits of the petitioner. 6. To the contrary, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while justifying the impugned action of the respondents, submits that petitioner is accused of heinous crime, whereby he had permitted trees standing on the forest land to be felled, in connivance with other co-accused Hari Singh. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that amount due, if any, on account of damage to the trees may become recoverable from the petitioner and as such, retiral benefits of the petitioner have been rightly withheld. While referring to Rule 69(c) of Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, Mr. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that in case criminal proceedings are pending against employee, amount due, if any, on account of gratuity, shall not be released. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that criminal case as well as departmental proceedings came to be initiated against the petitioner in the year 2018, pursuant to directions passed by this Court in CWPIL No.45 of 2018. Though in disciplinary proceedings, petitioner stands exonerated, but criminal proceedings are still pending. Petitioner superannuated as Range Forest Officer in the year 2022. Promotion to the post of Range Forest Officer was earlier denied to the petitioner on account of pendency of criminal proceedings as well as disciplinary 2025:HHC:24817 5 proceedings, but subsequently, pursuant to order passed by this Court in CWP No.8170 of 2022 filed by the petitioner, he was promoted to the post of Forest Range Officer, but after his superannuation. It is also not in dispute that co-accused Hari Singh, who was indicted in disciplinary proceedings and against him, two criminal proceedings are still pending, approached this Court by way of CWP No.7487 of 2021, for release of retiral benefits. Pursuant to order dated 07.03.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court, above named Hari Singh has been released all retiral benefits, whereas petitioner, who though has been exonerated in disciplinary proceedings, is being denied retiral benefits, on account of pendency of criminal case. 8. To defeat the claim of the petitioner, as put forth, much reliance has been placed by respondents on Rule 39(3) of Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 and Rule 69(c) of Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, which read as under: “Rule 39(3) of Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972: 39. Leave/Cash payment in lieu of leave beyond the date of retirement, compulsory retirement or quitting of service: *** *** *** *** (3) The authority competent to grant leave may withhold whole or part of cash equivalent of earned leave in the case of a Government servant who retires from service on attaining the age of retirement while under suspension or while disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against him, if in the view of such authority there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against him. On conclusion of the proceedings, he will become eligible to the amount so withheld after adjustment of Government dues, if any. 2025:HHC:24817 6 Rule 69(c) of Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972: 69. Provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceedings may be pending *** *** *** *** (c) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government 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 Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, for imposing any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 11 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorized to be paid to the Government servant.” 9. If the Rule 69(c) of Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, is read in its entirety, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner that amount due, if any, on account retiral benefits, can be withheld, only if there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from the delinquent official in criminal proceedings, however, in the instant case, once it is not in dispute that petitioner stands exonerated in disciplinary proceedings, there is no likelihood of some money becoming recoverable from the petitioner in criminal proceedings, rather at best, he can be convicted under relevant provisions of law. Though Rule 69(c) of Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, suggests that gratuity can be withheld during the pendency of criminal proceedings, but once amount on account of gratuity already stands released in favour of co- accused, may be pursuant to orders passed by this Court, prayer made 2025:HHC:24817 7 on behalf of the petitioner also deserves to be considered on account of the fact that he stands exonerated in disciplinary proceedings. 10. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Respondents are directed to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks, subject to petitioner’s furnishing undertaking that in the event of some money becoming recoverable from him in criminal proceedings, he shall deposit the same with the Department concerned with up-to-date interest, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months, failing which, petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum, from the date, it fell due, till its realization. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 29, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)