Partly allowed

Gursharan Singh Gill v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Feb 2010CWP/1956/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought release of gratuity and pension withheld due to departmental charges for loss to State Exchequer. Court allowed petition in part, directing release of benefits subject to deduction of alleged amount, with liberty on deduction and time limits for payment and inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Release of full pension and gratuity subject to deduction of Rs.1,84,952 pending inquiry outcome; payment within two months with 7% interest if delayed; inquiry to conclude within six months.

Gursharan Singh Gill Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.1956 of 2010.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.1956 of 2010 Date of Decision: 05.02.2010

¶6

¶7

Gursharan Singh Gill . . . . Petitioner

¶8

VS.

¶9

State of Punjab and another . . . . . Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶12

¶13

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

¶17

Present: Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner

¶18

Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab

¶19

¶20

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶21

(1). Notice of motion. Mr. B.S. Chahal, learned DAG Punjab, who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file any counter-reply at this stage.

¶22

(2). The petitioner sought and was granted voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.03.2006. He was working as Executive Engineer in the respondent-Department at that time.

¶23

2 –

¶24

CWP No.1956 of 2010.doc

(3).

(4).

(5).

The petitioner’s case is that neither the Gratuity amounting to more than Rs.10 lacs nor the pension and other pensionary benefits have been released to him so far. On the contrary a chargesheet dated 24.07.2008 (Annexure P5) has been served on him, inter alia, alleging that he had unauthorisedly made payment of Rs.1,84,952/- to the Contractors during the period from June 1991 to June 1992 thereby causing loss to the State Exchequer. The departmental action has been initiated under Rule 2.2(B) of the Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume-1, Part-II.

¶29

The petitioner has two-fold grievances. Firstly, he contends that the allegations pertained to a period which is more than four years’ old before the date of his retirement and therefore, no departmental action can be taken against him at this belated stage in view of the provisions contained in Rule 2.2(B) of the Rules ibid . Secondly, it is urged that even as per the allegations leveled by the respondents, an amount of Rs.1,84,952/- only is shown recoverable from him. Therefore, the entire amount of Gratuity/Pension cannot be withheld. As regards the first contention, learned counsel for the petitioner states that liberty may be

¶30

3 –

¶31

CWP No.1956 of 2010.doc

¶32

granted to the petitioner to represent to the competent authority as he does not seek quashing of the charge-sheet at this stage.

¶33

(6).

¶34

Ordered accordingly.

¶35

(7). As regards the second contention, the petitioner appears to be right in urging that for recovery of Rs.1,84,952.00, the Gratuity amounting to Rs.10 lacs and/or pension and other benefits cannot be withheld.

¶36

(8).

¶37

The writ petition is, thus, allowed in part; the respondents are directed to release the full pension and Gratuity to the petitioner, however, with a liberty to deduct a sum of Rs.1,84,952/which shall be subject to the final outcome of the departmental action. The Gratuity amount and pension shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which he shall be entitled to the interest @ 7 per cent per annum. Since the petitioner has already retired from service, it is directed that the departmental enquiry, subject to the extent of cooperation by him, shall also be expedited and concluded preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶38

4 –

¶39

CWP No.1956 of 2010.doc

¶40

(9). Dasti

¶41

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶42

05.02.2010

¶43

vishal shonkar

Gursharan Singh Gill v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gursharan Singh Gill v. State of Punjab & 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

Karnail Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Surinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Charanjit Kaur and Others Vs State of Pb.and Others

Ajaib Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.