The main legal point established is that an employee is entitled to interest on withheld gratuity as per Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the provisions of the 1972 Act override any inconsistent provisions of other enactments or instruments.

JUDGMENT :

UDAY KUMAR J.

1. A legal tussle has spiraled up to this Court seeking a quietus to the primary issues as to whether an employee is entitled to interest on the withheld amount of gratuity upon acquittal in the criminal proceedings pending against him on the date of his retirement and as to whether the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Act) would override the provisions of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 1993 Rules).

2. The order dated 23.09.2022 of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as learned Tribunal) passed in connection with the Original Application 350/461/2020, is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. By the said order the learned Tribunal refused the petitioner’s prayer to direct the respondents to pay interest for delayed payment of the gratuity, which was withheld for about 13 years from the date of his retirement i.e., 31.12.2006.

3. The brief facts are that the petitioner was a Carpenter under the Railways. He joined his services on 06.03.1983 and was superannuated on 31.12.2006 from the post of Technician/Gr.II/ Carpenter under the Senior Sectional Engineer /N.F. Railways/ Barsoi. On his retirement, all payable retiral benefits were disbursed to him except the gratuity amount and the commutation value, which was withheld on account of pendency of a criminal proceeding being ST Case no.303/365 of 2001 under section 302/ 307/ 380 /452 of IPC before the learned ADJ (FTC) 3rd Court at Katihar. By a memo no. DRM(P) dated 07.05.2007 it was communicated that the eventual release of withheld gratuity amount would depend on the outcome of the pending criminal proceeding. Consequent upon acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal charges by the judgment delivered by the learned ADJ, FTC 3rd, Katihar on 30th June 2018, the respondents released the gratuity amount of Rs..1,00926/- but without any interest and the said amount was credited to the petitioner’s account on 19.04.2019. The petitioner thereafter by a letter dated 20th January, 2020 to the G.M /NF /RLY Maligaon (Assam), CPO /MLG /NF Railways, DRM /Katihar /NF Railways claimed cumulative compound interest @12% on the gratuity amount, to be calculated from the date of his retirement and paid within 2 months after deducting the amount from the salary of the officer responsible, who illegally withheld the interest despite ‘No Dues Certificate’, issued by Senior Sectional Engineer/ North Frontier Railway/ Barsoi to the General Manager (Personal), Katihar.

4. Unresponsiveness of the respondents to petitioner’s prayer, triggered him to knock the door of the learned Tribunal, Kolkata by filing an application under section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 being OA/ 350/ 461/ 2020 for a direction upon the respondents to pay him cumulative compound interest at the rate of 12% over the withheld gratuity amount of Rs..100,926/-payable from the date of his retirement and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000 for his mental pain and sufferings and financial loss.

5. The learned Tribunal decided the matter on 23.09.2022 placing reliance upon the Rule 69 (1)(c) of CCS Pension Rules 1972 and the application was dismissed observing inter alia that the action of the respondents in withholding the gratuity amount cannot particularly be said to be on account of lapses on the part of the respondents.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner challenged it on the grounds that the learned Tribunal failed to consider that a ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued revealing that nothing was due to department and that no disciplinary proceeding was pending against him at the time of his retirement. The respondents withheld his gratuity ignoring that gratuity can only be withheld to adjust the government dues payable by the employee. Thus, the respondents illegally withheld the gratuity amount an