LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-81

UDAI NARAIAN OJHA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On January 21, 2020
Udai Naraian Ojha Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2011 from the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) in U.P. Police and is aggrieved by an order dated 28.1.2012, whereby, the amount payable to him towards gratuity has been withheld. This order records that the gratuity is not payable to petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed it is disclosed by the State authorities that a criminal Case No. 1838 of 2007 under Section 409 I.P.C. is pending investigation wherein petitioner is alleged to have embezzled a sum of Rs. 21,596/- and, therefore, the gratuity is rightly withheld. A subsequent counter affidavit is filed wherein it is disclosed that a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner on 20.4.2013. The first information report was lodged on 19.9.2007. Criminal trial is, however, pending. According to the respondents, withholding of gratuity in the above noted facts, is as per law. The short question that requires consideration in the present case is as to whether the amount of gratuity payable to retired employee of State could be withheld merely on account of pendency of criminal investigation against him at the time of retirement. The connected issue is whether the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner, subsequently, would justify withholding of gratuity even if the charge relates to a period which dates back to more than 4 years from the date of superannuation?.

(2.) Payment of gratuity to a government employee is regulated by the provisions of Civil Service Regulations and the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules,1961. The provisions in that regard have been noticed recently by a Full Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 40 of 2017 (Shivagopal Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others). Para Nos. 15 to 22 and 28 of the Full Bench judgment are relevant for the purposes of deciding the present case and are reproduced:-

(3.) The Full Bench in Shivagopal also considered the import of Article 351/ 351-A of the Civil Service Regulation. Para Nos. 40 to 43 of the judgment takes note of relevant provisions and are reproduced hereinafter:-