Ashok Kumar Sadhotra @APPELLANT@Hash State And Others

This petition  is filed  by the petitioner to seek inter aliaa direction to the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to  pay  him  the  retirement  gratuity  to the tune of   Rs. 4,93,477/-  in terms of gratuity payment order dated 22.5.2012 and also to pay him  the interest @ 24% per annum  on  his withheld gratuity  with effect from 22.5.2012  till it  is  actually disbursed to the petitioner.

Short grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition is that he joined the service of the respondents in the year 1974 as Junior Assistant and was posted in the office of Executive Engineer, Estate Division, Rehari, Jammu. The petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Estates Officer  and retired as such from the office  of Deputy Director, Estates  with effect from 30.4.2012. The respondent No. 5 recommended the payment of gratuity in favour of the petitioner  to the tune of Rs. 4,93,677/- vide  GPO dated 22.5.2012 . The petitioner however, was not released the aforesaid amount of gratuity allegedly on the ground that he had failed to submit NDC/NOC from respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner claims to have made several representations to the respondents for the release of gratuity, requesting them  categorically to deduct whatever found was due towards any outstanding  but nothing was done.  The petitioner was denied the gratuity. It is, however, stated that during the pendency of this petition, the gratuity amount of Rs.  4,93,677/-  was released in favour of the petitioner after deducting  a sum of Rs. 5,240/-  as outstanding loan amount  and  Rs. 9567/- as interest accrued thereon.

The grievance of the petitioner in so far as payment of gratuity is concerned has been redressed during the pendency of this petition. The only grievance which is left unattended by the respondents is payment of interest on the gratuity which remained withheld by the respondents with effect from 22.5.2012 till 03.01.2017. The petitioner claims that he is entitled for the payment of interest on the aforesaid amount @ 24% per annum.

The respondents have filed objections in which the delay in disbursement of gratuity has been sought to be explained on the ground that it is because of failure on part of the petitioner to produce the requisite NDC from the Housing and Urban Development Department from where he had drawn House Building Advance during the year 1980-81, the case of the petitioner  for payment of  gratuity  could not be finalized.

This court  considered  the stand of the respondents  at some length and vide its interim order dated 30.5.2016, took note of the representation of the petitioner ( Annexure-D)  dated 8.5.2013  addressed to respondent No.2 at the time of his retirement requesting that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs.15,000 be kept withheld  from his gratuity  till NDC/NOC  is issued by the concerned authority, came to the conclusion  that there was no justifiable reason  to withheld the gratuity of the petitioner.

Referring to the provisions of Regulation  168-AA  of the J&K Civil Services Regulations which enjoins  upon the respondents not to withhold the entire amount of gratuity in such circumstances, this court directed respondent No. 2 to file short affidavit as to why  despite request of the petitioner  made vide his representation dated 8.5.2013, the amount of gratuity  was not released  to the petitioner after withholding the requisite amount  in terms of Regulation  168-AA  of the J&K Civil Services Regulations.  The Director Estates thereafter, filed an affidavit explaining the delay in disbursement of the gratuity to the petitioner. In the affidavit filed by the  respondent No. 2 , the Director Estates, the stand taken is that there is no lapse   or remissness  on part of the respondents to release  the gratuity  but it is because of failure  on part of the petitioner  to produce  NDC  from the Housing and Urban Development Department, the matter could  not be processed.  The stand of the respondent No. 2  taken in short affidavit  filed  in terms of order dated 30.5.2016 was considered  by this Court  on 27.9.2016 when this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties , directed  that the Treasury Officer  shall release  the gratuity of the petitioner  after deducting  Rs. 14,807/-  without insisting  for production of NDC from the Housing and Urban Development Department. In compliance to the aforesaid order passed by this Court on 27.9.2016, the gratuity was ultimately released in favour of the petitioner on 03.01.2017.

In view of foregoing, the only question which needs determination in this petition, is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of gratuity which remained withheld with the respondents with effect from 22.5.2012 to 03.01.2017.

From the perusal  of pleadings of the parties and interim orders passed by this Court from time to time  particularly  the order dated 30.5.2016 and  order dated 27.9.2016, it is abundantly clear that the respondents were under obligation to release  the gratuity  of the petitioner  deducting  the outstanding amount  of Rs. 14,807/-  under Regulation 168-AA  of the J&K Civil Services Regulations  but the respondents arbitrarily  withheld  the whole gratuity of the petitioner  despite the fact that he had specifically  requested the respondents vide his representation  dated 8.5.2013 to  withhold   a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to  Rs.15,000/-  and pay him the balance gratuity. The petitioner was forced to knock the door of this court to seek release of the gratuity. With the intervention of this court and pursuant to the direction issued on 27.9.2016, the petitioner was ultimately released his gratuity.  There is thus, no manner of doubt that the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner remained withheld with the respondents without there being any justified reason and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the interest on the aforesaid withheld amount.  The Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court from time to time has held that the delay in the payment of  retiral  benefits particularly the gratuity without any justification would entail award  of interest. Gratuity of an employee, needless to say, is hard earned money of such employee and is payable immediately on his/her retirement. Any delay without any reasonable cause in the disbursement of post retiral benefits particularly the gratuity, has to be compensated by the payment of interest.  Having held thus, next question to be determined, is to on what rate, the interest would be payable to the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited certain judgments passed by this Court in which this Court has granted interest @ 12% per annum though judgments have been rendered from time to time keeping in view the then prevailing rate of bank interest on the deposits.

Keeping in view the totality  of the circumstances, the current rate of interest payable by the bank on its different types of deposits, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if the petitioner is compensated  by awarding  interest @9%  per annum which would be payable on the withheld  gratuity  amount w.e.f. 22.5.2012 to 03.01.2017. Ordered accordingly.  The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall calculate the interest as aforesaid and disburse the same to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date copy of this order is served upon the respondents.

Before parting with the judgment, it may be noted that the delay in the disbursement of gratuity of the petitioner has occasioned due to the act of omission of different incumbents who had held the position of the Director Estates and the Chief Accounts Officer during the relevant period. It would, therefore, be open to the respondents to hold an enquiry to find out the officer or  official responsible for depriving the petitioner of the gratuity  amount  and  made the State  to pay the interest.  Accordingly, based upon such enquiry, if the respondents choose to hold one, the respondent No. 1 would be entitled to fix the liability and recovery of said amount from the erring officers/officials.

Disposed of alongwith connected MP(s).