MEENA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishabh Kapoor the counsel for the respondents. The present petition has been filed aggrieved against the action of the respondents in appropriating an amount of Rs.12.12 lacs from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner argues that this very issue was considered by this Court in Service Single No.16296 of 2016 (Smt. Israwati Devi vs. U.P. Jal Nigam and others) decided on 14/10/2019 and the Special Appeal Defective No.191 of 2020 preferred against the said judgment too was dismissed on 23/7/2020. In the light of the said judgments, the counsel for the petitioner argues that there is no provision whereby the dues have been appropriated on the alleged recovery of some unadjusted dues. Sri Rishab Kapoor appearing on behalf of the respondents argues and places reliance on the Civil Service Regulations, as adopted by the respondents and in particular lays emphasis on Rule 922 of the Civil Service Regulations which enables the adjustment of ascertainable dues. Admittedly, there is no order passed against the petitioner quantifying the dues of Rs.12.12 lacs adjusted by the respondents corporation. The phrase 'ascertainable dues' included in Regulation 922 of the Civil Service Regulations has to be dues ascertained after following the process of law.

(2.) It is informed that the services of the husband of the petitioner were governed by the U.P. Government (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Without any order being passed under the said Rules, there is no process of ascertainment of dues. Merely stating that the dues are on account of un-adjusted store materials, the same would not fall within the definition of ascertainable dues as no process of ascertaining the dues has been adopted by the respondents. The conduct of the respondents in passing the order on 3/6/2022 (Annexure no.5), after about ten years of the death of the husband of the petitioner as a ploy to deprive the petitioner of his gratuity. This act of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the law and the petitioner has been made to suffer for a period of ten years on account of non-payment of gratuity. Thus, following the judgments in the case of Smt. Israwati Devi (supra) as upheld in Special Appeal Defective No.191 of 2020 (supra), the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dtd. 3/6/2022 is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the gratuity amount to the petitioner to which the husband of the petitioner was entitled within a period of two months from today. The respondents are also liable to pay interest @8% per annum after one month of the date of the death of the husband of the petitioner i.e. on 7/9/2012. Thus, the respondents are liable to pay interest from 7/10/2012 till the payment/realization.

(3.) In addition to the said, as the petitioner has been harassed for no reason whatsoever, the petitioner is entitled to a cost of Rs.25,000.00 which shall also be paid by the respondent no.5 from his own pocket. The said amount, if not paid within a period of two months, as directed above along- with interest, would attract a further penal interest @2% per annum over and above as awarded for same period.