UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents No. 2 to 6 were in the service of Union Territory, Chandigarh and were posted in the Engineering Department under the Chief Engineer. They retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on different dates between 30.06.2001 to 31.12.2008. However, the gratuity amount has not been paid to these respondents on their retirement. The reason given by the petitioner/Union Territory, Chandigarh is pendency of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 01 dated 03.02.1998 registered at Police Station Vigilance, U.T., Chandigarh under Section 13(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) and Sub Section 2 of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was registered against one Mr. K.K. Jairath and others in which the respondents No. 2 to 6 have also been implicated. As mentioned above, FIR was lodged in the year 1998. After investigation, challan was filed. Charges have been framed against the accused persons including the respondents No. 2 to 6 and the trial is going on in those proceedings.

(2.) The respondents No. 2 to 6 made representation to the petitioners to release their death-cum-retirement gratuity. As it was not done, they filed O.A. No. 517-CH of 2011. This O.A. has been allowed by the learned Tribunal vide judgement dated 30.09.2011 and impugning that judgement present writ petition is preferred.

(3.) A perusal of the order of the Tribunal would demonstrate that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the death-cumretirement gratuity of the respondents herein could not be withheld when no departmental proceedings were pending against these persons on the date of superannuation. For coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal has relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Manohar Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board and others,2006 2 RSJ 316. It is also mentioned that the aforesaid judgement is relied upon by another Single Bench of the said Tribunal in O.A. No. 146-CH of 2010, titled as K.B. Sharma Vs Union of India and others, decided on 15.04.2011. Before we comment on the rationale given by the Tribunal in allowing the O.A. of the respondents No. 2 to 6, it would be apposite to take note of the provisions relating to payment of gratuity and withholding thereof. These are contained in Chapter II titled "General Provisions Relating to Grant of Pension", Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, which are made applicable to the employees of the Union Territory, Chandigarh. Rule 2.1(b) and (c) as well as Rule 2.2(a) thereof are relevant for our purposes and are hereby reproduced below:-