Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 84 (ALL)

SHIVA NAND MAHARAJ v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-01-15

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, SUNEET KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The appellant retired from the service of the Public Works Department of the State Government on 31 January 2008. Aggrieved by the non-payment of his dues on account of gratuity, he filed a writ petition which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 26 November 2014 in terms of the following directions : “If whatever amount is due against the petitioner has already been deposited, the gratuity of the petitioner needs to be paid forthwith. It is also directed that if any amount is still due against the petitioner the same be deducted and gratuity be paid to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.” 2. The writ petition sought to impugn an order passed by the Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department at Balrampur on 23 November 2010 rejecting a representation filed by the appellant. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents before the learned Single Judge in which it was stated that a Government department receives money from the State Government under several heads and if there is a short fall under any head, the money required for day to day expenses is withdrawn by the Incharge from another head where money is available. It was stated that the appellant had withdrawn Rs. 5,29,598/- from the head in which the money was available and had spent it towards a head in which there was a deficit. The case of the respondents was that the amount of gratuity was withheld on the ground that it would be paid over to the appellant only after receiving from the Government the money under the head from which withdrawals were required to be made. It was stated that it is the duty of the department to ask the Government to pay the aforesaid amount so that the deficit under the head can be cleared. 3. Under the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, which have been framed in exercise of the power conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution, the amount of superannuation, retiring, invalid and compensation pension or gratuity is covered by Rule 4. 3. Under the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, which have been framed in exercise of the power conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution, the amount of superannuation, retiring, invalid and compensation pension or gratuity is covered by Rule 4. Rule 2(2) provides that the pension provisions contained in Civil Service Regulations shall continue to apply to officers governed by the rules except in so far as they are inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in the rules. Regulation 41 of the Civil Service Regulations defines the expression ‘Pension’ to include gratuity except when it is used in contradistinction to gratuity. Regulation 351(A) of the Civil Service Regulation provides as follows : “351-A. The Provincial Government reserve to themselves the right to order the recovery from the pension of an officer who entered service on or after 7th August, 1940 of any amount on account of losses found in judicial or departmental proceeding to have been caused to Government by the negligence or fraud of such officer during his service. Provided that (1) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was no duty. (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave mis-conduct, or to have caused, pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement.” 4. These provisions make it clear that while the Government reserves to itself a right to order a recovery from the pension of an officer or any amount on account of losses caused to Government by the negligence or fraud of the officer during his service, the amount of loss must be found in judicial or departmental proceedings to have been so caused. In other words, recovery from pension cannot be based on the mere ipse dixit of the departmental authority. The payment of pension, which as already noted above in Rule 2 of the 1961 Rules, covers gratuity as well, is not a matter of bounty or charity but constitutes an entitlement of an employee on account of the service which has been rendered to the State. The payment of pension, which as already noted above in Rule 2 of the 1961 Rules, covers gratuity as well, is not a matter of bounty or charity but constitutes an entitlement of an employee on account of the service which has been rendered to the State. Any recovery has to be strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. In the present case, admittedly, there has been no departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding against the appellant. No loss is found to have been sustained as a result of an act of negligence or fraud of the appellant. In fact, the counter-affidavit to which we have already made a reference earlier would indicate that it was not even the case of the departmental authorities that there was any act of negligence or fraud on the part of the appellant. In these circumstances, the order for withholding of gratuity was palpably illegal and ultra vires. 5. The learned Single Judge has passed an omnibus direction to the effect that the gratuity would be paid to the appellant “if whatever amount is due against the petitioner has already been deposited”. The learned Single Judge also held that if any amount is still due, the same may be deducted and the balance of the gratuity be paid. What the learned Single Judge overlooked, with respect, is that any recovery or deduction from gratuity has to be only after following due process of law, as required under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, which has not been done in the present case. 6. For these reasons, we allow the special appeal in part and substitute the direction of the learned Single Judge with the direction that the appellant shall be entitled to the payment of his gratuity within a period of one month of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event that the gratuity due and payable to the appellant is not paid within the period noted above, the appellant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date on which the gratuity has fallen due. 7. The special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. —————