The provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 prevail over the General Insurance Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, and can override recovery sought from gratuity.

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner Shri Pradeep Sawkar and the learned counsel appearing for respondent, Shri S.K. Hegde.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was working as an Assistant Branch Manager at the Hubli branch – II in the petitioner Company. During the year 1991 he is said to have committed certain irregularities in respect of which a charge sheet dated 01.12.2003 was issued to him. An enquiry was thereafter conducted in accordance with the General Insurance (Conduct. Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1975 Rules’, for brevity), wherein he was found guilty of the charges. Thereafter, the competent authority by an order dated 22.06.2005 imposed a penalty of recovery of Rs.57,600/-from the terminal dues payable by the respondent being the loss caused to the petitioner Company and also ordered a cut in the pension in a sum of Rs.1,000/-per month, for a period of one year from the date of commencement.

3. The respondent had issued yet another charge sheet dated 18.03.2004 for certain irregularities committed while he was working as a Branch Manager at the Karwar branch of the petitioner Company during the year 2001. After a duly conducted enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority by an order dated 30.06.2005 imposed a penalty of recovery of Rs.3,48,000/-from the terminal dues payable to the respondent and a permanent cut in the pension in a sum of Rs.2,000/-per month, from the date of commencement. The said orders had attained finality. The respondent is said to have retired from service of the petitioner Company and he was relieved with effect from 28.02.2005.

4. There were two other charge sheets dated 12.01.2005 and 06.03.2006 respectively. After an enquiry in respect of the same, punishment of recovery of Rs.1,06,984/-was ordered and a reduction in pension by a sum of Rs.2,000/-per month, for a period of two years and punishment of reduction in basic pension of Rs.1,500/-per month permanently was ordered, respectively. Though there was an order for recovery of Rs.5,80,000/-in the last of the enquiries pursuant to the charge sheet dated 06.03.2006, no recovery was made since the respondent had attained the age of superannuation and had retired from service and the petitioner had only recovered Rs.5,12,584/-as against an actual loss of Rs.26,75,384/-in the above instances. In any event the controversy that is the subject matter of this petition, pertains to the recovery sought to be made from out of the gratuity payable to the respondent.

5. It is pertinent to note that insofar as the recoveries ordered are concerned, pursuant to the charges dated 12.01.2005 and 06.03.2006, the same were said to be pending as on the date, the respondent attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, recoveries could be made only out of the pension that was granted to the respondent and an order was passed in this regard in terms of paragraph 45 of the General Insurance Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1995 Scheme’, for brevity).

6. In this background, the respondent had approached the Controlling Authority seeking a direction to the petitioner to pay the gratuity due to him. The competent Authority by an order dated 30.10.2006 had directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,50,000/-being the gratuity amount. Against which an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, in turn, disposed of the appeal by an order dated 30.03.2009, affirming the order of the Controlling Authority, and therefore, the present petition.

7. The point that arises for consideration is :

“Whether the petitioner was in a position to invoke paragraph 45, particularly sub paragraph (2) of paragraph 45 of the General Insurance Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 in seeking recovery of the amounts claimed, from the gratuity amount payable to the respondent?”

8. In this regard though several grounds are urged in the writ petition, Shri Pradeep Sawkar, the learned couns