Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2502 (HP)

Sukh Ram Nadda v. H. P. S. E. B. L.

2011-10-15

SURINDER SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, Judge (oral): 1. The petitioner by means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks the writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Board to pay an interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment of DCRG and leave encashment amounting to ` 3,20,447/-and ` 1,94,210/- w.e.f. 1.12.2005, when it fell due till its actual payment was made. 2. The petitioner, an employee of the respondent-Board, was superannuated on 30.11.2005 on attaining the age of retirement. During his service, he was served with the charge-sheet (Annexure P-2) on 16.2.2005, alleging that due to his negligence and lack of supervision being Store Incharge, there was a theft of 1505 meters of panther conductor, valuing ` 60,200/-, which took place from the store of P&M Sub Division, Jabli on the intervening night of 7/8.11.2002. Second charge-sheet was served against the petitioner on 5.3.2007 (Annexure P-4) after his retirement, alleging that because of negligence and lack of supervision on the part of petitioner, theft of 1301 meters of panther conductor, valuing ` 54,967/- had taken place from the same store during the intervening night of 1/2.8.2003 . Both these charge-sheets were inquired into by appointing the Inquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority, but the respondent-Board was not able to prove the charges. As such he was exonerated. 3. During the pendency of the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, petitioner’s DCRG amount of Rs.3,20,447/- and leave encashment amount of Rs.1,94,210/- was withheld. Consequently, he filed the Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal for its release, which was subsequently transferred to this Court after its abolition and was registered as CWP (T) No.15659 of 2008. When this matter was pending, the respondent-Board issued the third charge-sheet against the petitioner on 15.2.2008 for alleged negligence and lack of supervision, as a result of which panther conductor measuring 10.161 Kms. valuing ` 4,31,131/-was stolen from the Jabli store, falling in P&M Sub Division, Bilaspur. This Court during the proceedings in CWP (T) No.15659 above, directed the respondents to complete the proceeding of the inquiry within the stipulated period. Which was completed and the petitioner was exonerated. 4. Consequently, the petitioner vide his application (Annexure P-10) addressed to respondent No.5 on 2.11.2010, made the request for releasing DCRG and leave encashment amount with interest from 30.11.2005, the date of his retirement. 5. Which was completed and the petitioner was exonerated. 4. Consequently, the petitioner vide his application (Annexure P-10) addressed to respondent No.5 on 2.11.2010, made the request for releasing DCRG and leave encashment amount with interest from 30.11.2005, the date of his retirement. 5. The respondent-Board released the leave encashment amount on 7.12.2010 and DCRG on 21.12.2010, vide Annexure P-12 and Annexure P-11 respectively, but no interest was paid thereupon. Hence, the present petition. 6. The respondent Board resisted the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that no payment of gratuity was required to be made to the petitioner until the conclusion of the proceedings and issue of the final order thereon. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board submitted that in case of a Government servant who, while under suspension is retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation before the termination of departmental or Court proceedings, the Competent Authority to grant leave may withhold whole or part of cash equivalent of earned leave, if in the view of such authority there is possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on the conclusion of the proceedings and the employee on conclusion of the proceedings will become eligible to the amount so withheld after adjustment of Government dues, if any. Therefore, the interest on the above amount is not payable as such an amount could be withheld pending enquiry. 8. I have considered the above contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Board, but I am not in agreement with the submissions so made. 9. As a matter of fact, under the Rules, gratuity becomes due immediately on retirement. Though the Government of India’s Decision No.(1), below Rule 68 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 says, where disciplinary or judicial proceedings against a Government servant are pending on the date of his retirement, no gratuity is paid until the conclusion of the proceedings and the issue of the final orders thereon. Though the Government of India’s Decision No.(1), below Rule 68 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 says, where disciplinary or judicial proceedings against a Government servant are pending on the date of his retirement, no gratuity is paid until the conclusion of the proceedings and the issue of the final orders thereon. The gratuity, if allowed to be drawn by the Competent Authority on the conclusion of the proceedings will be deemed to have fallen due on the date of issue of orders by the Competent Authority, but the Government of India’s Decision No.(3), below this Rule makes it clear that in such cases, if the Government servant is exonerated of all the charges and where the gratuity is paid on the conclusion of such proceedings, the payment of gratuity will be deemed to have fallen due from the date of retirement. If the payment of gratuity has been authorized after three months from the date of his retirement interest may be allowed beyond the period of three months from the date of retirement. 10. In Basanti Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, Latest HLJ 2011 (HP) 474, this Court 11. Thus, in view of the afore-stated position, the petitioner is held entitled for the interest @ 12% per annum, as per the judgment passed by this Court in Dr. J.C. Katoch and others vs. State of H.P. and other, decided on 30.8.2010 by the Principal Division Bench of this Court. 12. Consequently the petition is allowed, the petitioner shall be entitled for interest at the aforesaid rate w.e.f. 1.3.2006 i.e. three months after the date of his retirement till the actual payment of leave encashment and gratuity. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents that this amount of interest observed that once an employee is exonerated in departmental proceedings or acquitted in judicial proceedings in that event the gratuity would be deemed to have fallen due on the date of retirement for the purpose of interest shall be paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of production of copy of this judgment. 7. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any.