2024 Supreme(P&H) 230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Gobind Ram Verma – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CWP No. 19954 of 2018
Decided On : 12-03-2024

The withholding of gratuity solely on account of the pendency of the FIR, without any challan presented on the date of retirement, was not justified. The criminal proceedings would be deemed to have been initiated when challan is presented in the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are deemed to have been initiated after the charge memo is issued to the delinquent employee.

Headnote:

Gratuity Withholding - Public Works Department Employees - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1), Section 13(2) - The court discussed the withholding of gratuity of the petitioners solely on account of the pendency of FIR no.9 dated 29.06.2004 in which no challan/report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. had been filed on the date when the petitioners had retired. The court referred to Rule 9.14 (c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II and previous judgments to establish that the criminal proceedings would be deemed to have been initiated when challan is presented in the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are deemed to have been initiated after the charge memo is issued to the delinquent employee. The court held that the respondent authorities had no right to withhold the gratuity due to the petitioners solely on account of the pendency of the FIR when no challan had been presented on the date the petitioners retired. The petitioners were held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, former employees of the Public Works Department, Punjab, had their gratuity withheld due to the pendency of FIR no.9 dated 29.06.2004, despite no judicial proceedings being pending at the time of their retirement. The petitioners sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest on the withheld gratuity.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the withholding of gratuity solely on account of the pendency of the FIR, without any challan presented on the date of retirement, was not justified. The court referred to Rule 9.14 (c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II and previous judgments to establish that the criminal proceedings would be deemed to have been initiated when challan is presented in the criminal proceedings. The court held that the respondent authorities had no right to withhold the gratuity due to the petitioners solely on account of the pendency of the FIR when no challan had been presented on the date the petitioners retired. The petitioners were held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity.

Issues: The main issue was whether the action of the respondents in withholding the gratuity of the petitioners solely on account of the pendency of the FIR was justified or not.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the criminal proceedings would be deemed to have been initiated when challan is presented in the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are deemed to have been initiated after the charge memo is issued to the delinquent employee. The court referred to Rule 9.14 (c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II and previous judgments to establish that the respondent authorities had no right to withhold the gratuity due to the petitioners solely on account of the pendency of the FIR when no challan had been presented on the date the petitioners retired.

Final Decision: The court partly allowed all the six writ petitions and held the petitioners entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity. The respondent authorities were directed to release the amount to the petitioners on account of the said interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the present order.