Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
HRTC Gratuity case Supreme Court verdict: Pension withheld despite departmental clean chit
New Delhi/Shimla, April 9,
The Supreme Court of India has upheld the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, rejecting the plea of a retired employee of the Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation seeking release of gratuity and full pensionary benefits despite being exonerated in departmental proceedings.
The case pertains to Bikram Chand Rana, who served HRTC as a clerk from 1979 and was later promoted to Senior Assistant in 2000. He retired on February 28, 2009. However, his gratuity and certain retiral benefits were withheld due to the pendency of criminal proceedings linked to the 2006 Combined Pre-Medical Test (CPMT) paper leak case.
An FIR registered in 2006 accused Rana and others under multiple provisions of the IPC, including criminal breach of trust and conspiracy. While departmental proceedings initiated in 2007 ultimately found the charges “not proved” in 2015, the criminal case remained pending.
Rana approached the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal and later the High Court, seeking release of withheld benefits. Both the Single Judge and Division Bench dismissed his claims, prompting him to move the apex court.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered on April 7, 2026, examined Rule 69(1)(c) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Bench held that the provision acts as a statutory embargo on the payment of gratuity as long as either departmental or judicial proceedings are pending.
Rejecting the appellant’s contention, the Court clarified that the term “or” in the rule expands the scope of the bar, meaning gratuity cannot be released until all proceedings—departmental or judicial—are concluded. Accepting the contrary interpretation, the Court observed, would defeat the rule’s objective of safeguarding the State’s financial interests.
The Bench further noted that departmental and criminal proceedings operate on different standards of proof and one cannot substitute the other. Even acquittal or exoneration in one does not automatically resolve the other.
Finding no legal infirmity in the High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. However, it reiterated directions to expedite the pending criminal trial arising from the CPMT paper leak case.
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.