NARINDER DEV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point which derserves to be adjudicated in this case is - whether the respondents have withheld the death-cum-retirement grauity payable to the petitioner under the authority of law or their action is contrary to the provisions contained in the rules which regulate the payment of post-retirement dues to an employee.

(2.) On ataining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired w.e.f. 30.6.1988 as Assistant Food and Supplies Officer. After his retirement, the petitioner made representations to the various departmental authorities for release of his gratuity. Accountant General, Punjab, issued letter No. Pen. (K) II/N-5/80-90/66-61 dated 10.5.1989 authorising the respondent No. 2 to realese a sum of Rs. 35107.05 towards death-cum-retirement gratuity payable to the petitioner. However, the departmental authorities did not realese gratuity in favour of the petitioner on the pretext that 'No Demand Certificate' has not been received. Letter dated 29.8.1990 (Annexure P-1) shows that no demand reports had been received from all the Heads of Branches at the Headquarter, but still the gratuity was not released to the petitioner. After retirement of the petitioner, the Director, Food and Supplies passed order dated 4.4.191 and granted the benefit of proficiency step up to the petitioner on completion of eight years.

(3.) Petitioner says that withholding of death-cum-retirement gratuity which was payable to him on the date of his retirement amounts to depriving the petitioner of his property and as the action of the respondent is not sanctioned by law, the petitioner is entitled to the amount of gratuity and interest due to unlawful deprivation of the property. The respondents have justified the withholding of the gratuity on the ground that the departmental proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner vide Memo Nos. JA-16-85/5292-95 dated 19.2.1986, JA-16-85/24001-02 dated 12.9.1986 and No.JA-16-QC-80-81-TTN-87/25277-85 dated 30.10.1987 (Annexures R-1 to R-3). Respondents have pleaded that in terms of Rule 2.2(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, Part II, the employer was justified in withholding the grauity because the person who is facing departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings is not entitled to grauity till the culmination of such proceedings.