Disposed

Tulsiram Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC1 May 2024WRIA/3054/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the rejection of a gratuity claim due to pending audit objections, the court noted that withholding gratuity under the relevant Government Order requires a prior charge sheet, which was absent. The respondent subsequently assured the release and credit of the gratuity by the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The respondent undertook to issue orders for the release and credit of the petitioner's gratuity within three weeks.

Tulsiram Nishad vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38691

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3054 of 2024

¶4

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.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Staterespondents.

¶7

With the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

¶8

There is consensus at bar that the facts of the instant have already been summed up in detail in the order dated 01.05.2024 which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:-

¶9

"1. Heard.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

4. This Court had required learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to the impediment in release of gratuity to the petitioner.

¶13

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.

¶14

6. However, a careful perusal of the Government Order dated

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

9. Let a personal affidavit be filed within ten days. List immediately thereafter as fresh."

¶19

Today, Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing counsel on the basis of instructions sent by Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Lucknow dated 21.05.2024 informs that orders have been issued for release of the gratuity of the petitioner and that gratuity would be credited in the bank account of the petitioner within three weeks from today.

¶20

The aforesaid statement of Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing counsel is recorded and the writ petition is consigned to record.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.5.2024 Pachhere/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Tulsiram Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulsiram Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sant Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Lko. and 3 Others

Krishna Nand Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shyam Mohan Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Administration Deptt., Lko. and Another

Indrajeet Singh PNO.152731063 and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy., Home Affairs Lko. and Others

Keshavram vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Minor Irrigation, Lko. and Others

Saurabh Singh @ Saurabh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another