A writ petition challenging the rejection of a gratuity claim was finally disposed of as the respondents agreed to release the gratuity without requiring a charge sheet.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38691
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3054 of 2024
Petitioner :- Tulsiram Nishad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayati Raj, Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
"1. Heard.
2. Instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.06.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for release of gratuity has been rejected.
3. A perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for release of gratuity despite the petitioner having retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2019 on the ground that there are various audit objections pending against the petitioner consequently it is not found feasible or possible to release the gratuity of the petitioner.
4. This Court had required learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to the impediment in release of gratuity to the petitioner.
5. Today learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions sent by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ayodhya i.e. respondent no.6 contends that a Government Order dated 28.07.1989 is in existence which pertains to giving power to the competent authority to stop the gratuity of the employee concerned where audit objections are pending against him.
6. However, a careful perusal of the Government Order dated
28.07.1989 would indicate that in paragraph 7 it has been provided that the gratuity can be withheld in case of any special loss yet prima facie prior to stopping the gratuity a charge sheet has to be issued to the delinquent employee.
7. In the instant case no charge sheet has ever been issued to the petitioner prior to his retirement or any charge sheet is pending against the petitioner as of date and consequently stoppage of gratuity does not appear to be countenanced in the eyes of law.
8. However, before proceeding further, the Court requires the personal affidavit to be filed by respondent no.1 detailing the reasons as to why the gratuity of the petitioner has been stopped inasmuch as the instructions which have been sent by respondent no.6 do not inspire confidence in respondent no.6.
9. Let a personal affidavit be filed within ten days. List immediately thereafter as fresh."
Order Date :- 22.5.2024 Pachhere/-
Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the stoppage of gratuity pending audit objections in the absence of a charge sheet is countenanced in law.
Tulsiram Nishad
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayati Raj, Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Abdul Moin
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
