Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/18 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 26 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010088542025
2026:GAU-AS:4345
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2252/2025
SRI RANJAN KUMAR DAS
SO LATE UMESH CHANDRA DAS
R/O HOUSE NO. 111/D, DR. B.K. KAKATI ROAD, ULUBARI GUWAHATI
781007 DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI,
PIN-781006, KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT, ASSAM
2:THE CHAIRMAN
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
V.I.P ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI
PIN- 781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM.
3:ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI
PIN- 781036 KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Page No.# 2/18
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-78100
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GOSWAMI, MR. R SHARMA,MR. B K GOSWAMI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE,SC, FISHERY
Linked Case : WP(C)/2254/2025
SRI BASANTA KAKATI
SO LATE HALADHAR KAKATI
R/O 2 NO MATHGHARIA
MOTHER TERESA ROAD
SIV MANDIR PATH
GUWAHATI-781020 KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FISHERY DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
PIN-781006
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
2:THE CHAIRMAN
FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
V.I.P ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI
PIN- 781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3:ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
VIP ROAD
Page No.# 3/18
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI
PIN- 781036 KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT. DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
------------
Advocate for : MR. S K GOSWAMI
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
Linked Case : WP(C)/2255/2025
SRI TARINI DEKA
S/O DAYARAM DEKA
R/O GANESH MANDIR PATH
NOONMATI
GUWAHATI- 781020 DISTRICT KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FISHERY DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
PIN-781006
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
2:THE CHAIRMAN
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
V.I.P ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI
PIN- 781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM.
3:ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
Page No.# 4/18
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI
PIN- 781036 KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT. DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
————
Advocate for : MR. S K GOSWAMI
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
Linked Case : WP(C)/2253/2025
SRI DEVA BARMAN
S/O LATE JADAB CHANDRA BARMAN R/O RAM DHENU PATH
VIP ROAD
AMARTAL
SIXMILE
GUWAHATI-781022 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FISHERY DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
PIN-781006
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
2:THE CHAIRMAN
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
V.I.P ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI
PIN- 781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
Page No.# 5/18
ASSAM.
3:ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI
PIN- 781036 KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT. DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
————
Advocate for : MR. S K GOSWAMI
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
:::BEFORE:::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
Date on which judgment is reserved : 18.03.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 26.03.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment : N/A
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes
Page No.# 6/18Judgment & Order (CAV)
Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.
P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, AFDCL and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned
Standing Counsel, Finance Department.
2. The challenge made in these writ petitions is to the order dated 19.03.2025
issued by the Managing Director of Assam Fishery Development Corporation
Limited (hereinafter referred to as “AFDCL”), whereby it is decided not to
release any pensionary benefits to the four retired employees of the
Corporation, i.e., the petitioners herein, on the ground of a pending Vigilance
and Enforcement Directorate case, as there is a provision for attachment of
property and the case is under investigation. The petitioners have prayed for a
direction to release their gratuity in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
(in short, the “Gratuity Act“), as well as arrear salary for the period from April,
2016 to March, 2020.
3. Having considered that these writ petitions involve similar issues on facts
and in law, same were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this
common judgment and order.
4. The case, in brief, is that the petitioners were appointed as Account
Assistants and Accountant vide orders dated 06.11.1984, 25.04.1988,
02.12.1987 and 03.12.1987 in AFDCL. The petitioners, upon attaining the age of
superannuation, had retired from service as Internal Auditor, Accountant and
Accounts Officers on 31.03.2023, 31.12.2022, 31.01.2022 and 30.11.2023,
respectively. On their retirements, the petitioners have been sanctioned monthly
Page No.# 7/18
pension of Rs. 3,948/- (Rupees Three Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Eight), Rs.
3,781/- (Rupees Three Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-One), Rs. 3,992/-
(Rupees Three Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Two) and Rs. 3,472/- (Rupees
Three Thousand Four Hundred Seventy-Two) by the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner (Pension), Guwahati. The petitioners have also received their
respective leave encashment, which was released by the Managing Director,
AFDCL.
5. On account of certain financial anomalies in AFDCL, a high-level enquiry
was conducted by the Government of Assam regarding the illegal transfer of
funds of the Corporation in the names of various officials of the Corporation,
contractors and suppliers. Based on the enquiry report, the Joint Secretary to
the Government of Assam, Fishery Department, directed the Managing Director
of AFDCL vide letter dated 07.02.2022 to initiate legal and administrative
actions. It has been observed that despite the objections/ views expressed by
the Accounts Branch of AFDCL against such illegal transfer of funds, the
sanctioning authority had granted such advances, ignoring the advice of the
Accounts Branch.
6. It is projected by the petitioners that, being Internal Auditor, Accounts
Officers and Accountant, had raised objection as regards the transfer of funds of
the corporation. However, ignoring such objection, the authorities of the
Corporation released advance amount in the names of different officials at their
own cost and responsibility. In that regard, the officials of the Accounts Branch
jointly submitted a note to the Managing Director on 25.10.2019 to check
unproductive expenditure in AFDCL. The petitioners are in no way connected
with any financial irregularities or anomalies; if any advance amounts were
Page No.# 8/18
released to officials, contractors, or suppliers, the same was done pursuant to
the decision of the higher authorities of the Corporation.
7. The petitioners contend that they are entitled to gratuity in terms of the
Gratuity Act. However, the respondent authorities in AFDCL have not released
the said amount despite repeated representations. Such non-release of the
gratuity amount has caused serious financial hardship to the petitioners, as they
are compelled to depend on the meagre pension amount being received by
them. It is contended that AFDCL has an arrangement with the Life Insurance
Corporation of India (LICI) to create a corpus through contributions made by
the Corporation for payment of gratuity to its employees upon superannuation
in accordance with the Gratuity Act and accordingly, LICI has released and
transferred the gratuity amount due to the employees of AFDCL, including the
petitioners, to the Corporation, which are presently lying with AFDCL.
8. Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that till date
the petitioners have not been issued any show cause notice with regard to any
case, nor have any disciplinary proceedings been initiated against them. It is
only after nearly two years of the petitioners’ retirement that the Managing
Director, vide the impugned order dated 19.03.2025, has decided not to release
any pensionary benefits to the petitioners on the purported ground of pendency
of a Vigilance and Enforcement Directorate case, without considering that the
petitioners are not at all involved in the said case.
9. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel submits that as per the Gratuity Act, it is
clearly provided that gratuity shall be payable to an employee who has rendered
continuous service for not less than five years upon superannuation. The
employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within 30 days from the
Page No.# 9/18
date it becomes payable to the employee and in case of default, the employer
shall be liable to pay simple interest. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to
gratuity after their retirement from service and the same cannot be withheld
and such withholding on the ground of pendency of investigation of some case
and proceedings, in which the petitioners are not involved, is a violation of the
Gratuity Act.
10. He submits that the gratuity of the petitioners cannot be withheld if the
employees have not been terminated from service, as specified under the
relevant provisions of the Gratuity Act. In the present case, neither have the
petitioners been terminated from service, much less has any show cause notice
been issued to them, nor have any departmental proceedings been initiated
against them. Therefore, the decision not to release any pensionary benefits to
the petitioners on the purported ground of pendency of a Vigilance and
Enforcement Directorate case is illegal and liable to be set aside and a direction
may be issued to the respondent AFDCL to release the pensionary benefits,
including gratuity, forthwith.
11. In support of his submissions, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the
petitioners, has placed reliance on the following judgments:
(i). State of Jharkhand vs. Jintendra Kumar Srivastava, reported in
(2013) 12 SCC 210.
(ii). Dr. Hiralal vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 346.
(iv). Smti Bahni Sikha Dutta vs. the State of Assam , in
WP(C)5369/2017.
Page No.# 10/18
12. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel has also relied upon the judgement in the
case of Jorsing Govind Vanjari vs. Divisional Controller Maharashtra
State Road Corporation, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 12, to project that for
the purpose of denying gratuity to an employee, it is not sufficient that the
alleged misconduct constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude as per the
report of domestic enquiry. It must further be established that the services of
the employee were terminated on account of such misconduct which constitutes
an offence involving moral turpitude.
13. On the other hand, Mr. P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for AFDCL,
submits that the petitioners have retired from the sensitive post of Internal
Audit, which forms part of the Accounts Committee of AFDCL and are alleged to
have been involved in siphoning and illegal disbursement of funds, as implicated
in Vigilance Case No. ACB P.S. Case No. 30/2023, under Sections 120B/406/409
IPC read with Sections 13(1)(a)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
He submits that the cases are not mere minor infractions but involved grave
charges of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust by a public servant and
corruption, which are directly linked with their official duties as Accountants,
Internal Auditors and Accounts Officers. The involvement of the petitioners,
being officials/officers of the Accounts Branch in the case, cannot be ruled out.
14. He submits that the offences charged would fall under “scheduled
offences” under Part A of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the PMLA). The gravity of the charges is
further amplified by the fact that the matter is under active investigation by the
Enforcement Directorate under the provisions of the PMLA to trace and
potentially attach proceeds of crime derived from these underlying criminal
Page No.# 11/18
activities. Therefore, non-release of the terminal benefits, including gratuity of
the petitioners, by the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 is not illegal but has
been made prudently, legally and responsibly to secure financial interests and
public funds. Such action is warranted, particularly in light of the ongoing
investigation by the ED under the PMLA, as the provisions allow attachment of
assets, including benefits that may be deemed proceeds of crime, given that the
proceedings are yet to be concluded. Therefore, there is no illegality in
withholding the pensionary benefits of the petitioners pending investigation by
the ED under the PMLA.
15. Mr. P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, submits that a person not accused
or prosecuted in a scheduled offence can still be prosecuted for the offence of
money laundering, provided the ingredients of Section 3 of the PMLA are
satisfied.
16. In support of his submission, Mr. P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, has
relied on the following Case Laws:
(i) Pavana Dibbur vs. The Directorate of Enforcement reported in
(2023) 15 SCC 91,
(ii) Vem Krishna Keerthan vs Directorate of Enforcement in Criminal
Petition No. 9314 of 2022, of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court,
(iii) M. Venkatesan vs. The Directorate of Enforcement, of the Hon’ble
Madras High Court,
(iv) of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. vs….., reported in (2023) 12
SCC 1.
Page No.# 12/18
17. Due consideration has been made to the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.
18. The petitioners, who were working as Account Officers, Internal Auditor
and Accountant, have retired from the services on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.03.2023, 31.12.2022, 31.01.2022 and 30.11.2023,
respectively. After retirement, they have been receiving monthly pension
amounts of Rs. 3,948/- (Rupees Three Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Eight), Rs.
3,781/- (Rupees Three Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-One), Rs. 3,992/-
(Rupees Three Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Two) and Rs. 3,472/- (Rupees
Three Thousand Four Hundred Seventy-Two) only respectively.
19. Due to allegation of certain financial anomalies and irregularities in AFDCL,
a committee was constituted to enquire into the same. On due examination of
the report of the enquiry committee, the Joint Secretary to the Government of
Assam, Fishery Department, by a communication dated 07.02.2022 addressed
to the Managing Director, AFDCL, directed initiation of appropriate legal and
administrative action against the officials involved in such illegal transfer of
funds and also to lodge an FIR. The allegation pertains to illegal transfer of
funds of the Corporation in the names of various officials, including the Ex-
Chairman/Vice-Chairman, as well as contractors and suppliers. It is indicated in
the said communication that, as per the report, despite objections/views raised
by the Accounts Branch of the Corporation against such advances, the
sanctioning authority had granted the same by ignoring the advice of the
Accounts Branch, which constitutes a serious financial irregularity.
20. Pursuant thereto, the Managing Director, AFDCL, vide communication dated
21.09.2022 filed an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge-cum-Superintendent of
Page No.# 13/18
Police, Vigilance Case and Anti-Corruption, Assam, mentioning clearly the names
of 14 former Managing Directors and other officers/officials of the AFDCL.
However, the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. Consequent thereto,
Vigilance Case No. ACB P.S. No. 30/2023 was registered under Sections
120B/406/409 of the IPC read with Sections 13(1)(a)/13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and subsequently, to the ED under the PMLA, which is
pending investigation.
21. The petitioners have brought on record a note jointly submitted by them on
25.10.2019, which is reproduced herein below:
“Managing Director,
Regarding financial matters of the corporation
As per the accounts of the corporation finalized for the year 2015 and 2016,
there was a profit of Rs 572.66 lakhs and Rs 507.48 lakhs respectively. It can’t be
assessed the quantum of profit for the years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 as the
accounts of these years are not yet finalized. But it is quite certain to earn some profit
in those two years. But in the current year (2019-2020), a large sum of money has
been spent out of the corporation’s fund. If unproductive expenditure is not checked,
it will have adverse effect on the financial position of the corporation and there would
be a significant loss to the corporation in the current year. It is worthwhile to note that
the corporation earning profit continuously since 2001-2002 may have to face audit
objections and adverse reaction from Registrar of Companies if the corporation has to
face loss in a year all of a sudden. As such, it has become necessary to avoid
unnecessary expenditure.
It is for your kind appraisal from the accounts branch of the corporation in the
greater interest of the corporation.
Sd/- Deba Barman, Accountant
Sd/- Ranjan Kr Das, Internal Auditor,
Sd/- Basanta Kakat, Asstt. Accounts Officer
Sd/- Tarini Deka, Accounts Officer”
22. Perusal of the above note submitted by the petitioners reveals that, if
Page No.# 14/18
unproductive expenditure is not checked, it is likely to adversely affect the
financial position of the corporation and may result in significant losses during
the current year. It is further reflected that the corporation, which has been
consistently earning profits, may face audit objections and adverse remarks
from the concerned authorities in the event of an abrupt loss. Accordingly, the
petitioners suggested that unnecessary expenditure be avoided.
23. On consideration of the matter, the issue required to be determined in the
present proceeding is as to whether the respondent AFDCL would have any
authority to withhold the release of pensionary benefits, including gratuity, of
the petitioners on account of the pending investigation by the ED under the
PMLA. To appreciate, it would be apposite to refer to and consider the
relevant provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
24. Under Section 4(1), it is laid down that gratuity shall be payable to an
employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered
continuous service for not less than five years, on his superannuation,
retirement, resignation, or on his death or disablement due to accident or
disease. Further, under Section 7(3A), gratuity is required to be released within
thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the employee, and in case of
default, the employer shall be liable to pay simple interest to the employee.
25. Section 4(6) provides that gratuity of an employee can be withheld, when
service of the employee has been terminated for any act, wilful omission or
negligence causing damage or loss or destruction of the employer’s property, by
forfeiting it wholly or partially to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. It
further provides that gratuity may be forfeited where the services of such
employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any
Page No.# 15/18
other act of violence. Section 13 protects gratuity to the extent that no gratuity
payable under the Act shall be liable to attachment in execution of any decree
or order of any civil, revenue or criminal court.
26. In the present case, undisputedly the services of the petitioners have not
been terminated, nor are there any allegations of willful omission, negligence, or
of causing any damage, loss or destruction of the property of the employer, or
of riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence. Though the FIR has
been filed against ex-employees, officials and officers, the names of the
petitioners do not find mention therein. The investigation in Vigilance Case No.
ACB P.S. Case No. 30/2023 as well as the proceedings initiated by the ED is still
pending and nothing has been brought on record to indicate any involvement of
the petitioners in the alleged financial irregularities.
27. Law is well settled that the right to receive pension is a right to property
protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which provides that no
person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Pension is
payable to an employee in consideration of long, continuous and dedicated
service and cannot be treated as a bounty payable at the will and pleasure of
the employer. The right to receive pension and other retirement benefits is thus
a valuable right vested in an employee.
28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgements including in the case
of Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra), Jorsing Govind Vanjari, (supra), has
held that pension and gratuity are valuable rights protected under Article 300A
of the Constitution of India and cannot be withheld by executive or
administrative instructions in the absence of statutory authority. It has further
been held that mere pendency of departmental, vigilance or criminal
Page No.# 16/18
proceedings is not a valid ground to deny such benefits, unless the statutory
conditions permitting forfeiture or withholding are satisfied or a finding of guilt
is recorded in accordance with law.
29. In the present case, the petitioners have been receiving a meagre amount
of pension and leave encashment to which they are entitled. However, the
remaining pensionary benefits, including gratuity, are sought to be withheld on
the purported ground of pendency of an investigation in Vigilance Case No. ACB
P.S. Case No. 30/2023 and the subsequent proceedings initiated by the ED
under the PMLA, wherein provision for attachment of property is provided. The
petitioners are not Government servants, but retired employees of AFDCL, who
have superannuated from service and are presently on a meagre pension. Under
these circumstances, withholding of gratuity, to which the petitioners are
otherwise entitled, in the absence of any ground permissible under the law to
withhold, would be impermissible and illegal.
30. The services of the petitioners have not been terminated, nor are there any
allegations of willful omission, negligence causing damage or loss or destruction
of the employer’s property, or of riotous or disorderly conduct or any act of
violence. The only ground cited appears to be the pendency of investigation by
the ED under the PMLA, wherein provisions exist for attachment of property.
Mere pendency of such proceedings, without any allegation or material
indicating the involvement of the petitioners, cannot constitute a valid ground
for withholding pensionary benefits, including gratuity and such action, if
permitted, would be totally contrary to law.
31. Regard being had to the judgments relied upon by the respondents in
Pavana Dibbur (supra), Vem Krishna Keerthan (supra), M. Venkatesan
Page No.# 17/18
(supra), Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) and Mohammad Wajid (supra),
perusal of the same indicates the principles relating to the scope and ambit of
proceedings under the PMLA, the independent nature of the offence of money
laundering and the permissibility of simultaneous investigation or prosecution in
respect of predicate/scheduled offences. However, the said decisions are
rendered in a completely different context and do not deal with the issue of
entitlement to pensionary benefits or gratuity, nor do they recognise any
authority in law to withhold such statutory benefits merely on account of
pendency of investigation under the PMLA. In the present case, there is
admittedly no material to show that the petitioners are accused in the predicate
offence or that any finding of guilt has been recorded against them, nor is there
any statutory provision brought to the notice of this Court enabling withholding
of gratuity on such ground. Thus, the reliance placed on the aforesaid
judgments does not come to the aid of the respondents in justifying the
impugned action of withholding pensionary benefits.
32. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view
that the decision to withhold the pensionary benefits, including gratuity, on the
ground of pendency of the Vigilance and ED case, coupled with the alleged
authority to attach property, is illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly, the
impugned order dated 19.03.2025 issued by the Managing Director of AFDCL is
hereby set aside and quashed.
33. Consequently, the respondent authorities are directed to release the
pensionary benefits, including gratuity, to the petitioners expeditiously and, in
any case, positively within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed
Page No.# 18/18
any opinion on the merits of the Vigilance and ED case, which is pending
investigation. The concerned authorities shall be at liberty to proceed with the
investigation in accordance with law.
34. The writ petitions stand allowed and disposed of. However, there shall be
no order as to cost(s).
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
