Dismissed

Union of India and 3 Others v. Vishwanath Prasad

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024WRIA/8714/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against CAT order directing release of withheld death-cum-retirement gratuity to a retired postal employee. Since the departmental recovery for the same subject matter had already been effected in full, the court held the gratuity could not be withheld merely because a criminal case remained pending, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Union of India and 3 Others vs Vishwanath… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:118566-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8714 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Union of India and 3 others Respondent :- Vishwanath Prasad Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Verma Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Sunil

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.

¶6

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.2023 passed in Original Application No. 176 of 2017 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby the O.A. filed by the respondent has been allowed and impugned order dated 29.07.2016 to the extent of withholding of Death-cumRetirement-Gratuity (for short 'DCRG') amount has been set aside. Further the Competent Authority has been directed to release the DCRG of the respondent within a period of three months.

¶7

The Original Application was filed by the respondent, aggrieved of the order dated 29.07.2016, based on which, retiral dues payable to the respondent, have been denied on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him.

¶8

The facts of the case are that the respondent was initially appointed on Group D post, subsequently he was promoted as Postman and later on was appointed as LGO Postal Assistant Cadre and ultimately was allowed actual posting on the post of Postal Assistant. On 12.03.2003, the respondent was served with a memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules with the charge pertaining to shortage of Rs.3,08,608/-. After inquiry, he was imposed with the penalty of Rs.2,08,608/- to be recovered in 91 installments.

¶9

¶10

The respondent retired on 31.01.2013 but he was denied payment of any retiral dues except the pension. The representation made seeking payment of retiral dues came to be rejected vide order dated 29.07.2016 on account of pendency of the criminal case.

¶11

Before the Tribunal, submissions were made that a letter was written by the Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur to the Assistant Director General Complaint, New Delhi indicating that after completion of departmental proceedings, the respondent was imposed with penalty of recovery of Rs.2,08,608/- and reduction of pay. Amount of recovery has already been deducted from the pay and allowances and no recovery remains against him. It was submitted that only on account of pendency of a criminal case, the DCRG cannot be withheld specially when the recovery of amount imposed as punishment has already been made.

¶12

The submissions were contested by the petitioners with the submissions that DCRG has been withheld in accordance with Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules and, therefore, the O.A. deserves to be dismissed.

¶13

The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that as the penalty amount imposed against the respondent has already been recovered, the amount of DCRG is required to be disbursed to the respondent and consequently passed the order as noticed hereinbefore.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules which clearly prescribes under Sub-clause (c) of Clause (1) that no gratuity shall be paid to the government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceeding and issue of the final order thereon.

¶15

¶16

Admittedly, the judicial proceedings are still pending and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in passing the order impugned. 9. By order dated 30.05.2024, learned counsel for the petitioners was granted time to make submissions as to whether, in case, the respondent is convicted, the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity can be forfeited and/or any other reason for withholding the amount of DCRG, in case, where already by way of departmental proceedings, recovery to the tune of Rs.2,08,608/- has been ordered and recovered from the respondent, to which learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly submitted that the DCRG cannot be forfeited even if the respondent is convicted in view of the fact that the amount to be recovered pursuant to the departmental proceedings has already been recovered. However, reliance was placed on Shivagopal vs. State of U.P. and others : Special Appeal No. 40 of 2017, decided on 08.05.2019 and Ashfaq Ahmad vs. Union of India and others : Writ - A No. 14387 of 2021, decided on 21.10.2021 .

¶17

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶18

Insofar as the applicability of Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and the restriction created therein are concerned, the same are not in dispute. However, the issue in the present case, is whether the criminal proceedings pending against the respondent which pertains to the same subject matter for which he has already been proceeded against in departmental proceedings and the recovery ordered against him to the tune of Rs.2,08,608/- already stands recovered, whether the petitioners are now justified in denying payment of DCRG to him.

¶19

The purpose for which provisions of Rule 69 have been enacted essentially is that, in case, based on the findings of the criminal case, any sum is found recoverable against the employee, the same can be

¶20

¶21

adjusted from the amount of DCRG. However, as admittedly, in the present case, recovery, if any, to be made from the respondent has already been made and the amount recovered, only by way of pedantic implementation of provisions of Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules, the amount of DCRG due to the respondent cannot be withheld.

¶22

The order passed by the Tribunal in the peculiar circumstances of the case cannot be faulted. So far as the judgements in the cases of Shivagopal (supra) and Ashfaq Ahmad (supra) are concerned, there is no dispute on the legal propositions laid down therein. However, as observed hereinbefore, in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the said judgements would have no application.

¶23

Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 RK

¶25

(Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Union of India and 3 Others v. Vishwanath Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Union of India and 3 Others v. Vishwanath Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jugal Kishore Kushwaha vs Union of India and 2 Others

Surendra Prasad Dwivedi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Aditya Narayan Rai Minor vs Union of India

Devendra Kumar Chaurasia vs Union of India and 2 Others

Qaisar Raza and Another vs State of Up and 4 Others

Naasir Arafaat vs State of Up and 4 Others