(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 24.11.2025 made in W.P.(MD)No.27983 of 2025.)

M. Jothiraman, J.

1. The present intra-Court appeal has been instituted as against the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.27983 of 2025 dated 24.11.2025.

2. Originally, the respondent/writ petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the appellants herein to permit the respondent/writ petitioner to retire from service with effect from 30.04.2018 in view of the deemed retirement of the respondent/writ petitioner by virtue of the Rule 56(1-A) of the Fundamental Rules and consequently, disburse the retirement benefits.

3.It is the case of the respondent/writ petitioner that when he was due to retire from service on 30.04.2018, just three days before the date of retirement, he was issued with a charge memo dated 27.04.2018. He was placed under suspension vide G.O.(2D)No.33 dated 30.04.2018 and vide another G.O.(2D)No.34 dated 30.04.2018, he was not permitted to retire from service in terms of 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules. He was constrained to file a writ petition in WP.(MD)No.15825 of 2020 seeking a direction to complete the disciplinary proceedings. In pursuance there of, enquiry came to be completed and he was exonerated from the allegations, vide G.O.(2D)No.389, dated 02.11.2021. Another charge was also dropped in terms of G.O.(Pa)No.441, dated 01.12.2022. He preferred a representation dated 27.01.2025 seeking his retirement benefits. In pursuance thereto, the first appellant in his letter dated 04.08.2025 has informed that permission was given by DVAC to conduct a detailed enquiry on seven officers including the respondent/writ petitioner. In pursuant to the same, regular case was registered by DVAC against the respondent/writ petitioner and others. Pendency of criminal case is no way be a reason to deny the retirement benefits as he reached the age of the superannuation on 30.04.2018. He was already given GPF amount alone and no other benefits were disbursed.

4.The learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that Rule 56(1-A) of the Fundamental Rules prohibits the retention of an employee who reached the age of superannuation. Proviso to Rule 56 (1-A) of the Fundamental Rules further provides that the Government employee who had been suspended and retained in service shall be deemed to have been retired from service on the date of superannuation. In view of the same, the learned Writ Court declared that the respondent/writ petitioner shall be deemed to have been retired from service and also issued a direction to disburse all the terminal benefits including pension, Provident Fund, DCRG, Earned Leave Salary etc., together with interest as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Aggrieved over the same, the Department has preferred the present appeal.

5.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants would submit that proviso to Rule 56(1-A) expressly states that the Government servants who were under suspension and not permitted to retire, but retained in service beyond the date of superannuation, shall be deemed to have retired from service on the date of superannuation and the pending disciplinary proceedings shall continue under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Rule 9 read with Rule 69 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 permit provisional pension and regulate or defer further pensionary disbursements when disciplinary or judicial proceedings are pending. The learned Writ Court failed to appreciate the scope and effect of G.O.Ms.No.47, dated 29.08.2025, whereby erstwhile Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules was omitted and Rule 56(1-A) was introduced. The amendment does not provide for unconditional release of all retirement benefits irrespective of the pendency of disciplinary or judicial proceedings. As per G.O.47 and the clarification letter No.7399/FR-3. Spl./2025-1 dated 09.10.2025, the Government servants, who have retained in service under the erstwhile Rule 56(1)(c) shall be deemed to have retired on their superannuation dated and that in cases where criminal or disciplinary proceedings are pending, the terminal benefits shall be settled only in the manner prescribed in the Annexure I, after applying the relevant pension rules and deferring benefits such as leave encashment where proceedings are pending.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent was not permitted to retire from service in terms of 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules. Subsequently, the Government amended the said provision and thereafter deleted the Rule 56(1)(c) itself and 56(1-A) came to be inserted. Proviso to Rule 56(1-A) specifically contemplates that the employees who were not permitted to retire by invoking Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules is deemed to have been retired from service on respective date of retirement. Continued suspension and retention of the respondent/writ petitioner in service is contrary to G.O.47 dated 29.08.2025, especially since the charge memo no longer survives. The charge memo has already been quashed in WP. (MD)No.14297 of 2023 dated 06.09.2024. There is no infirmity in the order of the learned Writ Court in directing the authorities to disburse all the terminal benefits including pension, Provident Fund, DCRG, Earned Leave Salary etc., together with interest and the same is sustainable in the eye of law.

7.We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the available records carefully.

8.It is not in dispute that when he was due to retire from service on 30.04.2018, just three days before the date of retirement, he was issued with a charge memo dated 27.04.2018. He was placed under suspension and retained in service by invoking Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules. The charge memo issued against him was also quashed vide order dated 06.09.2024 in WP.(MD)No.14297 of 2023 on the ground of delay. It is relevant to note that Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules has been omitted and Rules 56(1-A) & 56(1-B) of the Fundamental Rules have been introduced by way of amendment to the Fundamental Rules.

9.It is pertinent to mention that proviso to Rule 56(1-A) of the Fundamental Rules expressly states that the Government servants who were under suspension and not permitted to retire, but retained in service beyond the date of superannuation, shall be deemed to have retired from service on the date of superannuation and the pending disciplinary proceedings shall continue under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The case on hand involves substantial questions relating to the interpretation of the newly amended Rule 56(1-A), introduced on 29.08.2025, and the subsequent clarification letter dated 09.10.2025, as well as the applicability of Rules 9 and 69 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and the pendency of criminal and disciplinary proceedings. A perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.47 dated 29.08.2025, it is understood that the said amendment intended to remove the concept of retention in service beyond the age of superannuation and to provide for deemed retirement while simultaneously preserving the power of authority to continue the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. It is also understood that the amendment does not provide for unconditional release of all retirement benefits irrespective of the pendency of disciplinary or judicial proceedings. It is also reveals that in cases where criminal or disciplinary proceedings are pending, the terminal benefits shall be settled only in the manner prescribed in the Annexure I, after applying the relevant pension rules and deferring benefits such as leave encashment where proceedings are pending.

10.It is also not in dispute that the judicial proceedings is pending as against the respondent while he was serving as Junior Assistant in Ettayapuram Town Panchayat. A criminal case was instituted by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in Spl.C.C.No.47 of 2026 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi. Further, in relation to the allegation with regard to financial loss to Keelakarai Municipality, a regular case was registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in Cr.No.21 of 2024. In such circumstances, judicial proceedings within the meaning of Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 continue to remain pending against the respondent/writ petitioner and have not attained finality. Rule 9 of the Tamil Naud Pension Rules, 1978 expressly reserves to the Department right to continue disciplinary proceedings instituted while the employee was in service, even after retirement. The said Rule, further preserves the right to withhold or withdraw pension and to recover pecuniary loss from the pension or death-cum-retirement gratuity where grave misconduct established in departmental or judicial proceedings.

11.It is pertinent to mention that Rule 69 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978, contemplates payment of provisional pension where Departmental or criminal cases are pending. Rule 9(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 authorises the Government where pecuniary loss to the Government or local bodies is involved, to order recover from pension or death-cum-retirement gratuity upon the finding of the misconduct in departmental or judicial proceedings. The writ impugned order, if allowed, directing to release all the monetary benefits notwithstanding pendency of the criminal proceedings, is contrary to the Rule 9 and 69 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Rule 86(a) of the Fundamental Rules provides that in respect of the Government servants, who is facing an enquiry into charges of criminal misconduct or allegations of criminal misconduct is pending or against whom a complaint of criminal offence is under investigation or trial and whose suspension is revoked, encashment of earned leave and leave on private affairs shall be deferred by the competent authority till the conclusion of the proceedings pending. Such benefits of encashment of earned leave and leave on private affairs shall be drawn and disbursed to such Government servants, after regulating his suspension period. In view of the same, the respondent is not entitled to claim benefits of encashment of earned leave and leave on private affairs.

12.Rule 69(1)(b)(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules deals with if any complaint of criminal offence is under trial against the Government servants no gratuity shall be authorised until the conclusion of such proceedings. In view of the above, the respondent is not entitled to claim the terminal benefit of gratuity.

13.In view of the specific restrictions contained in the above said Rules, directing the appellants to disburse all the terminal benefits including gratuity, encashment of earned leave and leave on private affairs, is un-sustainable in law. In such circumstances, the order of the learned Writ Court is liable to be set aside to the extent directing the appellants to disburse the encashment of earned leave and leave on private affairs and gratuity. The respondent/writ petitioner is entitled to get all other benefits, except encashment of earned leave and leave on private affairs and gratuity, as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and as per the Fundamental Rules.

14.With the above modification, this writ appeal is partly-allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.