HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14373 of 2026 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. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Pradeep Kumar Mishra Union of India and 3 others .....Petitioner(s) Prem Narayan and another .....Respondent(s) 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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/- WRIA No. 14373 of 2026 8 Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad