High CourtsDivision Bench

Ramkrushna Wasudeorao Nichat vs The Zilla Parishad, Amravati

Bombay High Court · Decided on 2 February 2018 · Citation: (2018) 02 BOM CK 0025

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Swapna Joshi
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
4742 of 2002

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

38 paragraphs · 365 words
1.

Heard Shri Johrapurkar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Ms. Khan, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

None had appeared for respondent no.1.

2.

With the assistance of learned A.G.P. we have perused

reply-affidavit filed by respondent no.1.

3.

After superannuation of petitioner, gratuity amount was

not released fully and recovery of an amount of Rs. 72,644/- was

effected from the same. Petitioner challenged this action in Appeal

before respondent no.2 Divisional Commissioner. By a speaking

order on 24.12.2001, his appeal came to be allowed and a direction

has been issued to respondent no.1 to pay gratuity amount to

petitioner and liberty is also given to take action against responsible

persons. After this order, as gratuity amount was not paid, present

petition has been filed in September, 2002 by the petitioner.

4.

Learned A.G.P. has also pointed out submissions filed by

respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 being Appellate Authority has

supported the order dated 24.12.2001, which is in favour of the

petitioner. Respondent no.1 has pointed out that it is conducting

enquiry against the persons in the matter and hence, petition should

be dismissed. This reply has been filed on 11.08.2003.

5.

Gratuity can be withheld only for a proved loss, that too

by a proper order before retirement. This is not the position here.

Hence, enquiry even if going on, is not sufficient to deny payment of

gratuity amount to petitioner. Respondent no.1 has rightly pointed

out the provisions of Rule 27[2] of the Maharashtra Civil Services

(Pension) Rules, 1982. If after enquiry the petitioner is found guilty,

the loss caused can be recovered as provided in law through his

pension amount. Similarly, by way of punishment, his pension also

can be deducted.

6.

We therefore, find no justification for withholding the

gratuity amount payable to petitioner who has superannuated on

31.08.1999.

7.

We therefore, direct respondent no.1 to forthwith release

the withheld amount of gratuity to petitioner with interest as

stipulated in Payment of Gratuity Act . The amount shall be

deposited in the bank account of the petitioner within next three

months. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made

absolute in aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.