Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2131 (JHR)

Ramashish Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2017-12-11

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for quashing of order dated 28.4.2014 issued under the signature of Under Secretary of the Animal Husbandry & Fishery Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby a direction has been issued to withhold the amount of a sum of Rs. 1,63,490/- from the amount of gratuity which has been due for making payment of house rent. Further prayer has been made for quashing of the order contained in memo No. 525 dated 6.5.2014, issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary of the Department, whereby the Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi has been communicated not to make payment of Rs. 1,63,490/- in terms of the order dated 28.4.2014. Petitioner was appointed in the Animal Husbandry Department and having been posted in different districts in different capacities. Lastly he superannuated from the post of Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department on 31.5.2013 and thereafter he was paid the entire retiral dues save and except the amount of Rs. 1,63,490/- which has been withheld by the respondents in terms of order dated 28.4.2014 on the ground that petitioner has taken the said amount by way of making payment of monthly rental to the house owner and as such the said amount has been withheld from the total amount of gratuity of the petitioner. It has been alleged that I while posted as District Animal Husbandry Officer, Latehar from 6.3.2009 to 31.12.2012 the petitioner had used two extra rooms of the Govt. Godown for his residential purposes, which has been reported by the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Latehar vide his letter No. 217 dated 1.6.2013 and as such the respondent authorities have passed an order for withholding a sum of Rs. 1,63,490/- in lieu of the same. In terms of the order dated 28.4.2014, the respondent authorities have also communicated to the Accountant General, Jharkhand vide letter dated 6.5.2014, to withheld the amount of a sum of Rs. 1,63,490/- from the amount of gratuity and as such the said amount of gratuity, has not been paid to the petitioner. As the said orders were absolutely incorrect and contrary to the records, the petitioner made representation before the authorities for release of the amount of gratuity which has illegally been withheld by the respondent-authorities but no heed was paid to the said representation and as such this writ application has been preferred. 2. Mr. As the said orders were absolutely incorrect and contrary to the records, the petitioner made representation before the authorities for release of the amount of gratuity which has illegally been withheld by the respondent-authorities but no heed was paid to the said representation and as such this writ application has been preferred. 2. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that respondents have illegally and arbitrarily withheld the amount of gratuity after retirement. The learned counsel argues that in absence of any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, amount from the gratuity cannot be withheld and as such withholding of the said amount is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that from perusal of the records it is apparent that respondents have issued "No Dues" certificate to the petitioner which itself makes it clear that no kind of dues was remaining with the petitioner and as such the amount of retiral benefits was extended to the petitioner but illegally and arbitrarily in pretext of frivolous grounds, the amount of gratuity has been withheld. 3. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. J.C. to learned S.C. (L & C) vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and argues that since the said amount was due against the petitioner as he was in possession of two extra rooms of Govt. Godown for his residential purposes other than his residence and as such this amount has been withdrawn as a way of rent, which was not admissible to the petitioner and as such there is no illegality in withholding the amount of gratuity. The learned counsel however has no answer to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of Rule 43(b) whether any proceeding was initiated or not. 4. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration, it is admitted and not denied in the counter-affidavit that any proceeding was initiated under Rule 43(b), before adhering to the conclusion that the said amount was withheld for the reason that petitioner was occupying two extra rooms other that his residential quarter. The said contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is also not tenable and acceptable to this court, as the respondents themselves have issued "No Dues" Certificate to the petitioner which shows that nothing was due against the petitioner at the time of his retirement. Admittedly, the petitioner never misrepresented regarding any amount which has illegally been withheld but on the retirement of the petitioner he was entitled for all the amounts which accrued to him by way of retiral benefits. In the entire service period never any proceeding was initiated against him for withholding two extra rooms other than his residential quarter. It is only after retirement, the successor in office who has passed orders for withholding the said amount of gratuity. It is settled principle of law that no amount of gratuity can be withheld after retirement from an employee without adhering to the principles of natural justice and also without following the procedures of law. In the instant case nothing has been done, which shows the callous approach of the respondents by withholding the amount of gratuity from the employee. 5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules/guidelines/judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 6.5.2014 and 28.4.2014 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 1,63,490/- to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.