The right to receive pension and gratuity is recognized as a right in 'property' and cannot be taken away without the due process of law.

ORDER :

Since both these petitions relate to the same petitioner and involve the issue of non-payment of his retiral dues including the gratuity amount, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. WPS No.3925/2016 has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent authorities to grant him the gratuity amount of Rs.6,20,671/-. WPS No.952/2017 has been filed for setting aside the orders dated 4.10.2016 and 29.11.2016 (Annexure P/1) whereby a total sum of Rs.6,21,281/- has been ordered to be recovered from the gratuity amount of the petitioner.

3. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petitions, are that the petitioner retired on 31.12.2012 from the post of Superintendent of Industrial Training Institute, Bhatgaon, Distt. Dhamtari. On 11.4.2014 the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.5/Office Superintendent, ITI, Dhamtari for grant of gratuity vide Annexure P/4. Though on 28.8.2015 the Joint Director (Training), Industrial Training Institute, Raipur Region, issued a Memo (Annexure P/3) to respondent No.6 Mr MR Dhruw, Training Superintendent of ITI, Bhatgaon for issuance of No Dues Certificate to the petitioner within seven days so that all his retiral dues could be paid to him but no such certificate was issued to him. Since the amount of gratuity was not paid to the petitioner, on 11.1.2016 he made a representation to the Deputy Director of CG Human Rights Commission for payment of gratuity of Rs.6,20,671/- as well as for issuance of No Dues Certificate vide Annexure P/2. Again on 8.3.2016 the petitioner made a representation (Annexure P/1) to the Joint Director of CG Human Rights Commission for payment of gratuity of Rs.6,20,671/- as well as for issuance of No Dues Certificate. However, till date the gratuity amount of the petitioner has not been released. Hence WPS No.3925/2016 has been filed for the following relief:

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writ and direct the respondents authorities to pay the amount of gratuity Rs.6,20,671/- to the petitioner.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case and cost of the petition may also be awarded to the Petitioner.”

As subsequent to filing of WPS No.3925/2016, on 4.10.2016 and 29.11.2016 the respondent authorities have issued orders for recovery of a total amount of Rs.6,21,281/- against the petitioner from his gratuity, the petitioner has filed WPS No.952/2017 for the following reliefs:

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 04.10.2016 and 29.11.2016 (Annexure P-1).

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writ and direct the respondents authorities to pay the retiral dues to the petitioner.

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case and cost of the petition may also be awarded to the Petitioner.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from the post of Superintendent of ITI, Bhatgaon, Distt. Dhamtari on 31.12.2012 after serving for 33 years but despite several request, oral as well as in writing, the gratuity amount of Rs.6,20,671/-was not paid to him. Though through Memo dated 28.8.2015 the Joint Director (Training), ITI, Raipur Region directed respondent No.6 to issue No Dues Certificate to the petitioner within 07 days so that all his retiral dues could be paid to him but respondent No.6 did not act accordingly. The petitioner has made several representations to the respondent authorities in this regard but of no avail. It is well settled that gratuity is property of retired employee/officer which is earned by dint of long, continuous and unblemished service and this right cannot be taken away without following the due process of law.

Reliance has been p