The jurisdiction to withhold gratuity based on a charge-sheet issued after retirement was not established, and the petitioner was entitled to interest on the delayed payment.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi. J. (Oral) - The claim in the present writ petition is for the grant of interest on the delayed payment of the gratuity amounting to Rs. 4,07,030/-, which was paid to the petitioner after a period of approximately five years of his retirement.

2. As per the facts mentioned in the writ petition, petitioner joined as a Forest Guard with the respondents and thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Forester and ultimately retired from the said post on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2011. After the retirement, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 01.06.2012 and on the basis of the said charge-sheet, the gratuity of the petitioner was withheld. The charge-sheet dated 01.06.2012 was taken to its logical end and the punishing authority passed an order dated 14.05.2014, wherein, the petitioner was held liable for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,75,150/-. Thereafter, petitioner challenged the said order of punishment before the appellate authority by filing an appeal and the appellate authority accepted the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 03.08.2015 and the punishment order imposing recovery of Rs. 1,75,150/-, was withdrawn and petitioner was discharged from the allegations, which were alleged against him in the charge-sheet dated 01.06.2012. After the said disciplinary proceedings came to an end, the respondents released the gratuity of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 4,07,030/- on 15.07.2016. The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that he is entitled for the interest on the said amount of gratuity as the said amount was withheld by the respondents without any jurisdiction.

3. Upon notice of motion, respondents have filed the reply.

4. In the reply, the respondents have taken the stand that there was a charge-sheet dated 01.06.2012, which was issued to the petitioner under Rule 7 of the Haryana Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1987 and when the proceedings in respect of the said charge-sheet came to an end, the amount of gratuity, which was withheld, was released to the petitioner and therefore, the amount of gratuity was withheld keeping in view the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, which action was well within the jurisdiction of the respondent-department and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of interest is liable to be rejected.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. It is an admitted fact that on the date when the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired on 30.07.2011, there were no proceedings pending against him. Once, there were no proceedings pending against the petitioner on the date of retirement, respondents were under an obligation to release the pensionary benefits within a reasonable time of his retirement. A Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa vs. State of Punjab and others., (1997) 3 SCT 468 has held that pensionary benefits of an employee are to be released within a reasonable time after retirement in case there is no impediment and the reasonable time for releasing the pensionary benefits is two months after the retirement of the employee.

7. In the present writ petition, the charge-sheet, which was served to the petitioner, which has been made a ground to withhold the gratuity, was issued to the petitioner on 01.06.2012, which is approximately 11 months after his retirement.

8. It is a settled principle of law that position with regard to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings or proceedings before any Competent Court of Law, is to be seen on the date of retirement. In case there are no proceedings pending against the employee on the date of retirement, respondents do not have the jurisdiction to withhold the pensionary benefits of the employee. No rule has been cited by the learned State counsel that the charge-sheet, which has been served after the retirement, will give the respondents the right to with