AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—From the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the Respondents today in I.A. Nos. 1160 of 2010 and 1819 of 2010, it appears that pursuant to the directions contained in the order of this Court dated - 17.04.2010, the Respondents have assessed the amount of leave encashment, payable to the petitioner and have issued the necessary sanction for the release of such payments. It is also informed that for payment of the balance amount of G.P.L., a letter has been written to the Assistant Director, Provident Fund on 22.05.2010 to assess the balance amount and to pay the same to the petitioner without any further delay.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that in compliance with the aforesaid directions, it is expected that the balance of the G.P.F. amount together with the total amount of leave encashment would be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month.
As regards the petitioner''s claim for payment of Gratuity, learned Counsel informs that the payments have been withheld by the Respondents-authorities and a decision in this regard was taken on 31.12.2006, although the copy of the order was not addressed to the petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had retired from service on 30.06.2001, whereafter he was entitled to prompt payment of his retiral dues but the retiral dues have been withheld continuously for a period of nine months and it is now in the counter affidavit of the Respondents that an information has been revealed to the petitioner for the first lime that the payment of gratuity of the petitioner has been withheld on the ground that the petitioner was convicted for some offence in the year 2006. Learned Counsel further submits that there was no sufficient reason to retain or withhold the amount of gratuity, which was legitimately and genuinely payable to the petitioner after his retirement.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents is not able to inform as to whether any information was given to the petitioner by way of any show-cause notice, declaring their intention to withhold the amount of gratuity, payable to him on the ground that some proceeding was pending against him.
It is a settled principle of law that the amount of gratuity of a retired Government employee cannot be withheld merely because of the pendency of some proceedings against him. For such withholding, the employee has to be given a show cause notice and a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to explain as to why the Gratuity amount should not be withheld and after conducting an enquiry as per procedure laid down, the employer may take a decision regarding the withholding of the Gratuity amount. This issue has been decided in a judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Dudhnath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2007 (4) J.C.R. 1 (Jhr.) [FB] wherein it has been held that the State Government has no power at all to withhold the payment of leave encashment nor can it withheld the retiral dues without initiating a proceeding under Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules.
Admittedly, no proceeding whatsoever was initiated at any point of lime against the petitioner, as contemplated under Rule 43B of the Pension Rules. Admittedly, no show cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner to explain as to why the Gratuity amount should not be withheld. The conviction of the petitioner, having been passed, more than live years after the date of his retirement, the Respondents-authorities cannot possibly take advantage of such conviction and withhold the Gratuity amount, since any decision regarding the withholding of such payment, ought to have been taken immediately or promptly after the date of the petitioner''s retirement from service.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, this case is remitted back to the concerned authorities of the Respondents to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law regarding the payment of Gratuity to the petitioner to which he was entitled, immediately after the date of his retirement. Such decision shall be taken in accordance with the principles of law as laid down in the case of Dudhnath Pandey (Supra), within a period of two months from the date of this order. The Respondents-authorities are also directed to assess the amount of pension which is payable to the petitioner and if no instructions have been issued in this regard to the office of the Accountant General till date, then to issue such instructions within 15 days from the date of this order so as to enable the office of the Accountant General to process the same and issue the authority slip to enable the petitioner to obtain his pension.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.