SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Pat) 2321

PATNA HIGH COURT
Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.
Shambhu Sharan Singh S/o.Late Jagdish Narayan Singh
Versus
Chairman And Managing Director, Uco Bank
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 3503 of 2010 3795 of 2010
Decided On : OCTOBER 11, 2010

The provisions of the Gratuity Act prevail over any inconsistent regulations, and the gratuity cannot be forfeited/withheld unless the employee was terminated for serious misconduct.

Headnote:

Gratuity - Withholding of Payment - Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 - Section 4(6), Section 13, Section 14 - The court discussed the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, specifically focusing on Section 4(6) which outlines the conditions for forfeiting gratuity, and Section 13 which prohibits attachment of gratuity in any manner. The court also emphasized the overriding effect of the provisions of the Gratuity Act over any inconsistent enactment or regulation, as stated in Section 14.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought the release of their gratuity withheld by the Bank pending criminal proceedings. The petitioners argued that their gratuity cannot be forfeited as they were not terminated from service and that the Gratuity Act prohibits attachment of gratuity under any court order. The Bank relied on its Pension Regulations to withhold the gratuity, claiming it to be more beneficial than the Gratuity Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the gratuity cannot be forfeited or withheld as the petitioners were not terminated from service, and the Gratuity Act prohibits attachment of gratuity under any court order. The court also held that the provisions of the Gratuity Act prevail over any inconsistent regulations, and thus directed the release of the withheld gratuity.

Issues: Whether the gratuity can be forfeited/withheld during the pendency of departmental proceedings/judicial proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The gratuity cannot be forfeited/withheld unless the employee was terminated for serious misconduct, and the Gratuity Act prohibits attachment of gratuity under any court order. The provisions of the Gratuity Act prevail over any inconsistent regulations.

Final Decision: The court quashed the orders withholding the gratuity and directed the respondents to release the gratuity to the petitioners expeditiously.

JUDGEMENT

SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. The petitioners are aggrieved for being withholding the payment of gratuity on their superannuation in the year 2008 from the service of the Bank till conclusion of the criminal proceedings launched against them in the year 1994 which is pending for trial. Petitioners have prayed for a direction commanding the respondents to make payment of the gratuity which became admissible on superannuation as per the provision of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Gratuity Act).

2. The matter in issue as to whether Gratuity can be forfeited/withheld during the pendency of the criminal proceeding under the payment of Gratuity Act/UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation of the respondent-Bank.

3. The relevant facts of both the above cases are virtually common. However, relevant facts of the case of Shambhu Sharan Singh are being referred hereinafter for appreciating the matter in issue. Petitioner while working as an Assistant Manager at Chapra Branch of the Bank was proceeded departmentally as per charge-sheet dated June 27, 1994 for certain lapses in discharge of his duty. The departmental proceedings ended with inflicting the punishment of Censure as per order dated July 29, 1997 as contained in Annexure- 1. A criminal case was also launched and prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vide R.C. Case No. 24 (A)/94-PATH in the year 1994 against four officials of the Bank including the petitioner which is still pending for trial (i. e, pending for more than 25 years). The petitioner attended (sic attained) the age of superannuation on June of June 30, 2008 and as per communication dated May 21, 2008 (Annexure-2) he was advised to submit the pension papers for settlement of his terminal dues i. e. Provident funds, gratuity and pension. A certificate of retirement appreciating his service to the bank is also granted on June 30, 2008 vide Annexure-3. However, an order granting him provisional pension vide letter dated August 5,2008 (Annexure-4) was issued under intimation to the petitioner with further communication to the effect that he shall not be paid his gratuity till conclusion of criminal proceedings and subject to the decision of the proceeding/competent authority under regulation 46(2) of the UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Pension Regulation).

4. The case of the petitioner is that in the departmental proceeding he was not terminated from the service. The only punishment inflicted on him was of Censure that too ten years before his retirement. Accordingly, the gratuity cannot be withheld/forfeited.

The Gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred to as the Gratuity Act) cannot be forfeited/ withheld unless the concerned employee was terminated on account of serious misconduct in the departmental proceedings/judicial proceedings. Petitioner was admittedly not terminated and retired with appreciation and as such, his gratuity cannot be withheld/forfeited. The further case of the petitioner is that Section 13 of the Gratuity Act prohibits attachment of the gratuity under any orders of any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court and Section 14 manifests that the provisions of the Gratuity Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any enactment other than the Gratuity Act.

5. The case of the respondent-Bank relying upon the provision of Regulation 46(2) of the Pension Regulations is that the gratuity is not payable during the pendency of the criminal case against him as referred to above. The further case is that gratuity payable to the employees of the Bank is more beneficial than the gratuity payable under the Gratuity Act and as such, the provisions of pension regulation is to be given effect and in terms of Regulation 46(2) where provisional pension is being paid during the pendency of departmental or judicial proceeding gratuity is not payable during the pend

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top