An employer cannot withhold terminal benefits from a retired employee without just cause, particularly if no disciplinary action is taken after a prolonged period.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Delay in Disciplinary Action - The petitioner, who served for 38 years, claims terminal benefits withheld due to alleged excess LTC payment. The respondent acknowledged the lack of disciplinary action post-superannuation and issuance of a 'No dues' certificate. The court finds unjustified withholding beyond three years. The petitioner directed to receive dues within four weeks with interest if delayed. (Paras 2-7)

(B) Employment Law - Right to Terminal Benefits - The court emphasizes an employee's entitlement to terminal benefits after years of service, rejecting overly prolonged disciplinary proceedings as grounds for withholding assets. (Paras 2, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner superannuated from JNU on 31.10.2019 and sought release of terminal benefits including pension and gratuity, which were denied citing audit irregularities from 2018. No action was taken post-reply to charge memo issued prior to superannuation.

Findings of Court:
The lack of disciplinary action for over three years renders the withholding of terminal benefits unjustified, and the university must release all dues promptly.

Issues: The court addressed the legality of withholding terminal benefits amidst prolonged disciplinary deliberations and the employee's rights under such circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts must ensure that retired employees are not subjected to undue delays in receiving benefits, particularly when the employer fails to act on disciplinary procedures in a timely manner.

Result: Writ petition allowed, directing release of terminal benefits within four weeks, with interest for delays.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks release of terminal benefits. (Para 1)
2. respondent denies benefits due to alleged irregularities. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court notes delays and lack of action by respondent. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. court orders release of terminal benefits and outlines conditions. (Para 7 , 8)

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)--The petitioner, who superannuated as a Security Guard from the respondent/Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on 31.10.2019, has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent to release his retiral benefits including gratuity, leave encashment, insurance and differential amount payable towards pension, alongwith arrears.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had a clean record throughout his long service of 38 years in the respondent, and no disciplinary proceedings whatsoever were initiated against him either while he was still in service, or after his superannuation on 31.10.2019. He submits that the only ground on which the respondent has denied him his terminal benefits and full pension, is that certain irregularities in the form of excess payment made to him in respect of LTC claimed by him in 2018, were pointed out in the Inspection Report of the transaction audit of the University carried out for the year 2017-18. The petitioner was informed of the same vide a charge memo issued by the University on 12.04.2019, but after he submitted his reply on 21.05.2019, no action whatsoever was taken against him and upon his superannuation, he was issued a `No dues' certificate. However, after his superannuation on 31.10.2019, and despite no action having been initiated against him, he has been only sanctioned provisional pension, and his entire gratuity, leave encashment and other terminal benefits have been withheld by the respondent. He therefore, prays that the respondent/University be directed to forthwith release the petitioner's aforesaid terminal benefits with up-to-date interest @ 12% per annum, alongwith his full pension and arrears.

3. The writ petition is sought to be opposed by the respondent on the ground that, as per the Inspection Report submitted in 2018, it was found that some excess payment towards his LTC claim for airfare in respect of his visit to Port Blair in 2018, had been claimed by the petitioner. He submits that even though, the Competent Authority has already been approached for obtaining the necessary sanction for initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner, no final decision has yet been taken. Till a final decision regarding the disciplinary action, if any, to be initiated against the petitioner, is taken, he cannot be released his terminal dues. He, therefore, contends that the release of the terminal benefits of the petitioner have rightly been kept in abeyance till a final decision is taken as to whether disciplinary action is to be taken against him.

4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that it is the respondent's own stand that the purported excess payment claimed by the petitioner towards LTC was discovered upon an audit report having been conducted for the year 2017-18, which report has been placed on record along with the counter affidavit. It also transpires that it is the respondent's own case that, despite a charge memo regarding the purported irregularities having been issued to the petitioner way back on 12.04.2019, which was duly replied to on 21.05.2019, no action has been initiated against him till date, and on the other hand, he was issued a `No dues' certificate at the time of his superannuation.

5. There is no explanation by the respondent as to why no final decision regarding taking of any disciplinary action against the petitioner has been taken, even after more than three years since his superannuation. Except the bald statement that a final decision is likely to be taken soon, the counter affidavit is silent as to how the respon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document