Allowed

Shyam Sunder Kori v. State of Chhattisgarh and 2 Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC9 May 2017WPS/2659/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition and quashed an order directing recovery of Rs.2.70 lacs from the petitioner's gratuity. The court held that such recovery without a prior departmental enquiry violating principles of natural justice is unsustainable in law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order directing recovery of Rs.2.70 lacs from petitioner's gratuity was quashed.

Shyam Sunder Kori Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPS No. 2659 of 2008

¶4

Shyam Sunder Kori, 63 Yrs, S/o Late Dharamdas Kori, Gayatri Mandir Ward 25, Mohan Nagar, Durg

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh by Secretary, PWD, DKS Bhawan, Raipur

¶8

Engineer in Chief, PWD, Raipur

¶9

Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Durg

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri Rajendra Tripathi, PL

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

09/05/2017

¶15

Petitioner superannuated as Executive Engineer in the Department of Public Works, Government of Chhattisgarh on 31.12.2004. In course of finalization of his pension papers, the Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Durg Circle and Engineer-inChief, PWD, Raipur passed the impugned orders (Annexure-P-1 & P-2) directing recovery of Rs.2.70 lacs from the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner.

¶16

Admittedly, the petitioner was not proceeded with any departmental enquiry either before or after his retirement, wherein any penalty has been imposed on him for recovery of the subject amount. The impugned order also does not refer to any

¶17

such order whereby the petitioner has been visited with penalty of recovery of the subject amount.

¶18

Although, Section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides for contingencies when the amount of gratuity can be forfeited to the extent of damage or loss caused by government servant to the State Government, such assessment of loss or damage or the involvement of a particular government officer has to precede with a full fledged enquiry saddling the liability upon the concerned government servant, wherein he is allowed to participate in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

¶19

The return filed by the respondents nowhere indicates that any such enquiry was ever constituted against the petitioner, wherein an order of subject recovery has been passed.

¶20

The impugned order has thus been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, it deserves to be and is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to initiate enquiry against the petitioner, if permissible in law, in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. If on culmination of any such permissible enquiry the petitioner is found guilty, the recovery can be made in accordance with law.

¶21

The writ petition stands allowed in the above stated terms.

¶22

Sd/JUDGE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

¶23

Nirala

Shyam Sunder Kori v. State of Chhattisgarh and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder Kori v. State of Chhattisgarh and 2 Ors.

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

Similar cases

Menno Christian Education Soc. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

T.R. Kashyap Vs Chairman Mces and Others

Yashwant Dewan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

B.D. Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

G.C. Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sajeewan Ram Vs State of C.G. and Ors.