Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 717 (JK)

Ashok Kumar Sadhotra v. State

2018-09-24

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner to seek inter-alia a direction to the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to pay him the retirement gratuity to the tune of Rs. 4,93,477/- in terms of gratuity payment order dated 22.5.2012 and also to pay him the interest @ 24% per annum on his withheld gratuity with effect from 22.5.2012 till it is actually disbursed to the petitioner. 2. Short grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition is that he joined the service of the respondents in the year 1974 as Junior Assistant and was posted in the office of Executive Engineer, Estate Division, Rehari, Jammu. The petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Estates Officer and retired as such from the office of Deputy Director, Estates with effect from 30.4.2012. The respondent No. 5 recommended the payment of gratuity in favour of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 4,93,677/- vide GPO dated 22.5.2012. The petitioner however, was not released the aforesaid amount of gratuity allegedly on the ground that he had failed to submit NDC/NOC from respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner claims to have made several representations to the respondents for the release of gratuity, requesting them categorically to deduct whatever found was due towards any outstanding but nothing was done. The petitioner was denied the gratuity. It is, however, stated that during the pendency of this petition, the gratuity amount of Rs. 4,93,677/- was released in favour of the petitioner after deducting a sum of Rs. 5,240/- as outstanding loan amount and Rs. 9567/- as interest accrued thereon. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in so far as payment of gratuity is concerned has been redressed during the pendency of this petition. The only grievance which is left unattended by the respondents is payment of interest on the gratuity which remained withheld by the respondents with effect from 22.5.2012 till 03.01.2017. The petitioner claims that he is entitled for the payment of interest on the aforesaid amount @ 24% per annum. 4. The only grievance which is left unattended by the respondents is payment of interest on the gratuity which remained withheld by the respondents with effect from 22.5.2012 till 03.01.2017. The petitioner claims that he is entitled for the payment of interest on the aforesaid amount @ 24% per annum. 4. The respondents have filed objections in which the delay in disbursement of gratuity has been sought to be explained on the ground that it is because of failure on part of the petitioner to produce the requisite NDC from the Housing and Urban Development Department from where he had drawn House Building Advance during the year 1980-81, the case of the petitioner for payment of gratuity could not be finalized. 5. This court considered the stand of the respondents at some length and vide its interim order dated 30.5.2016, took note of the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-D) dated 8.5.2013 addressed to respondent No. 2 at the time of his retirement requesting that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- be kept withheld from his gratuity till NDC/NOC is issued by the concerned authority, came to the conclusion that there was no justifiable reason to withheld the gratuity of the petitioner. 6. Referring to the provisions of Regulation 168-AA of the J&K Civil Services Regulations which enjoins upon the respondents not to withhold the entire amount of gratuity in such circumstances, this court directed respondent No. 2 to file short affidavit as to why despite request of the petitioner made vide his representation dated 8.5.2013, the amount of gratuity was not released to the petitioner after withholding the requisite amount in terms of Regulation 168-AA of the J&K Civil Services Regulations. The Director Estates thereafter, filed an affidavit explaining the delay in disbursement of the gratuity to the petitioner. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, the Director Estates, the stand taken is that there is no lapse or remissness on part of the respondents to release the gratuity but it is because of failure on part of the petitioner to produce NDC from the Housing and Urban Development Department, the matter could not be processed. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, the Director Estates, the stand taken is that there is no lapse or remissness on part of the respondents to release the gratuity but it is because of failure on part of the petitioner to produce NDC from the Housing and Urban Development Department, the matter could not be processed. The stand of the respondent No. 2 taken in short affidavit filed in terms of order dated 30.5.2016 was considered by this Court on 27.9.2016 when this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, directed that the Treasury Officer shall release the gratuity of the petitioner after deducting Rs. 14,807/- without insisting for production of NDC from the Housing and Urban Development Department. In compliance to the aforesaid order passed by this Court on 27.9.2016, the gratuity was ultimately released in favour of the petitioner on 03.01.2017. 7. In view of foregoing, the only question which needs determination in this petition, is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of gratuity which remained withheld with the respondents with effect from 22.5.2012 to 03.01.2017. 8. From the perusal of pleadings of the parties and interim orders passed by this Court from time to time particularly the order dated 30.5.2016 and order dated 27.9.2016, it is abundantly clear that the respondents were under obligation to release the gratuity of the petitioner deducting the outstanding amount of Rs. 14,807/- under Regulation 168-AA of the J&K Civil Services Regulations but the respondents arbitrarily withheld the whole gratuity of the petitioner despite the fact that he had specifically requested the respondents vide his representation dated 8.5.2013 to withhold a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- and pay him the balance gratuity. The petitioner was forced to knock the door of this court to seek release of the gratuity. With the intervention of this court and pursuant to the direction issued on 27.9.2016, the petitioner was ultimately released his gratuity. There is thus, no manner of doubt that the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner remained withheld with the respondents without there being any justified reason and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the interest on the aforesaid withheld amount. There is thus, no manner of doubt that the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner remained withheld with the respondents without there being any justified reason and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the interest on the aforesaid withheld amount. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as also this Court from time to time has held that the delay in the payment of retiral benefits particularly the gratuity without any justification would entail award of interest. Gratuity of an employee, needless to say, is hard earned money of such employee and is payable immediately on his/her retirement. Any delay without any reasonable cause in the disbursement of post retiral benefits particularly the gratuity, has to be compensated by the payment of interest. Having held thus, next question to be determined, is to on what rate, the interest would be payable to the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited certain judgments passed by this Court in which this Court has granted interest @ 12% per annum though judgments have been rendered from time to time keeping in view the then prevailing rate of bank interest on the deposits. 9. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the current rate of interest payable by the bank on its different types of deposits, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if the petitioner is compensated by awarding interest @ 9% per annum which would be payable on the withheld gratuity amount w.e.f. 22.5.2012 to 03.01.2017. Ordered accordingly. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall calculate the interest as aforesaid and disburse the same to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date copy of this order is served upon the respondents. 10. Before parting with the judgment, it may be noted that the delay in the disbursement of gratuity of the petitioner has occasioned due to the act of omission of different incumbents who had held the position of the Director Estates and the Chief Accounts Officer during the relevant period. It would, therefore, be open to the respondents to hold an enquiry to find out the officer or official responsible for depriving the petitioner of the gratuity amount and made the State to pay the interest. It would, therefore, be open to the respondents to hold an enquiry to find out the officer or official responsible for depriving the petitioner of the gratuity amount and made the State to pay the interest. Accordingly, based upon such enquiry, if the respondents choose to hold one, the respondent No. 1 would be entitled to fix the liability and recovery of said amount from the erring officers/officials. 11. Disposed of alongwith connected MPs.