Disposed

Delhi Police, through Its Commissioner and Ors. v. Kanwar Singh

Delhi HC18 Jan 2024W.P.(C)/3898/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal had directed release of an employee's retiral benefits despite pending criminal proceedings. After the employee was acquitted, the Division Bench disposed of the writ petition by directing release of all retiral dues within three weeks without examining the correctness of the Tribunal's order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to release all retiral benefits of the respondent within three weeks; application for placing acquittal order on record allowed.

Delhi Police, through Its Commissioner and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~52

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 3898/2023 DELHI POLICE, THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

¶4

..... Petitioners Through: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, SC, GNCTD with Mr.Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms.Aliza Alam, Ms.Laavanya Kaushik & Mr.Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs. versus

¶5

KANWAR SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Dr.Manish Aggarwal, Ms.Namrata Sharma & Ms.Rambha Singh, Advs.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR O R D E R % 18.01.2024

¶7

CM APPL. 3281/2024 (directions)

¶8

This is an application filed by the respondent seeking to place on record a copy of order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate-06, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, vide which he has been acquitted in case arising out of FIR No.210/2012, Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi.

¶9

From the record, we find that the only ground on which the impugned order passed by the Tribunal directing the petitioners to release the retiral benefits of the respondent, has been challenged before this Court, is that since criminal proceedings were pending against the respondent, no directions for release of his retiral benefits could have been passed.

¶10

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2024 at 15:18:22

¶11

In the light of the aforesaid, the respondent’s prayer to place on record a copy of the decision, by which he now stands acquitted in the criminal case which was pending against him at the time of passing of the impugned order, the application deserves to be accepted. The application is, consequently, allowed and a copy of the decision dated 30.11.2023 filed alongwith the application is taken on record.

¶12

The application stands disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 3898/2023

¶14

The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in O.A. No.1583/2019. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal after rejecting the petitioner’s plea that the respondent’s retiral benefits could not be released on account of pendency of criminal proceeding against him, has directed the petitioner to release the said benefit within a period of eight weeks. The learned Tribunal had, however, granted liberty to the petitioners to take action under Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, against the respondent in case of his conviction in the criminal proceedings.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as no such directions for release of retiral benefits of the respondent could have been issued as long as criminal proceedings were pending against him especially since he was already being paid provisional pension. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that

¶17

¶18

irrespective of the reasons given in the impugned order, now that the respondent stands acquitted in the criminal proceedings on which ground alone, the petitioners have assailed the impugned order, the petition deserves to be rejected.

¶19

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that taking into account that the retiral benefits of the respondent were withheld only on account of pendency of criminal proceedings against him, in which he now stands acquitted, there is no reason as to why the petitioner ought not to release all his retiral dues. In the light of these changed circumstances, whereby the respondent stands acquitted in the criminal proceedings which were pending against him in respect of FIR No.210/2012, Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi, we do not deem it necessary to examine the correctness of the impugned order and dispose off the petition by directing the petitioners to release, within three weeks, all the retiral benefits of the respondent. It is however made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion qua the findings of the impugned order.

¶20

The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶21

10.The next date fixed in the matter stands cancelled.

¶22

REKHA PALLI, J

¶23

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J

¶24

JANUARY 18, 2024 kk

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2024 at 15:18:22

Delhi Police, through Its Commissioner and Ors. v. Kanwar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Delhi Police, through Its Commissioner and Ors. v. Kanwar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Qudsiya Vs Cbse & Anr.

Prl Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Airports Authority of India

Chandra Sen Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shiv Pujan Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Janak Kumar Bhatia Vs Union of India & Anr.

Uday Jayant Desai Vs Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi & Anr.

M/S Uncultured, a Unit of Konnect Hospitality Vs the Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors.

Anju Mehta Alias Anju Juneja Vs Govt. NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Umesh Kumar Tyagi Vs Dav Public School & Ors.

D.R. Arora Vs the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Y. S. Tanwar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Dr. Rohini Pakhiddey

Pritam Dahiya and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dsssb Vs Sh Niklesh Kumar and Anr.