JOYDEB GHATAK Vs. RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE EASTERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who retired as an Assistant Security Commandant in the Railway Protection Force in April, 2013, seeks a direction on the railway authorities for the payment of the subsistence allowance that the petitioner ought to have received during the period that he remained suspended and for his gratuity which, according to him, has been wrongfully withheld. The respondents say that serious charges were levelled against the petitioner and a Central Bureau of Investigation criminal case was instituted against him, inter alia, under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1973. The petitioner has been acquitted at the criminal trial and, though the petitioner has not produced a copy of the judgment, the petitioner claims that he was honourably acquitted. The respondents say that the petitioner was not honourably acquitted and an appeal has been preferred by the CBI against the order of acquittal. The appeal is pending in this Court and it is not the petitioner's case that the appellant in the relevant appeal has not been diligent in prosecuting the same.

(2.) The petitioner refers to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and says that the right of an employee who is eligible to receive gratuity under the said Act may only be whittled down in accordance with the provisions of the statute. According to the petitioner, the right conferred on the petitioner under section 4(1) of the Act cannot be interfered with in any manner whatsoever unless one or more of the conditions as enumerated in section 4(6) thereof arises.

(3.) The respondents refer to Rule 10 of the Rules governing the petitioner's service which is quoted in the petition. Rule 10(1)(c) of the Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993 provides as follows: