Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
V.K. Shukla, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ.
Amrit Lal - Appellant
Versus
Chief Election Officer, State of U.P. and 3 Others - Respondent
Writ A. No. 10549 of 2016
Decided On : 08-03-2016
The court referred to the Constitution of India, specifically Article 300A, which recognizes the right to property. The court also cited the Pension Act (Act 23 of 1871) and the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, which govern the payment of pension and retirement benefits to government employees. The court relied on these legal provisions to establish the petitioner's right to receive gratuity as a constitutional right.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired government employee, filed a writ petition seeking payment of gratuity that was withheld due to a pending criminal case against him. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, and the appeal against the acquittal was dismissed. The court had previously directed the authorities to calculate and pay the gratuity amount, but the payment was not made. The petitioner approached the court again seeking enforcement of the previous order.
Finding of the Court:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another, which held that gratuity is a hard-earned benefit that accrues to an employee and is in the nature of property. The court also cited the Constitution Bench judgment in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, which recognized the right to receive pension as a right to property. The court concluded that the petitioner's right to receive gratuity is a constitutional right and cannot be withheld without due process of law. The court further noted that the previous order directing payment of gratuity had not been complied with by the authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner has a constitutional right to receive gratuity, which cannot be withheld without due process of law. The court directed the authorities to calculate and pay the gratuity amount along with interest, as previously ordered, within a period of three months.
Result: The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities to pay the gratuity amount to the petitioner along with interest, as previously ordered, within three months.
Amrit Lal son of late Ram Badan is before this Court with the request to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay gratuity to him w.e.f. 1.10.2000 to 1.11.2011 along with 18% interest.
2. Record in question reflects that the petitioner, while holding the post of Assistant Election Officer, Gorakhpur, was placed under suspension on 13.5.2000. Thereafter he retired from service on 30.9.2000 on attaining the age of superannuation. His retiral dues were not settled on the ground that a criminal case under Sections 420, 406, 477A, 109, 120B IPC and Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was pending against him. He proceeded to file a Writ Petition No.24241 of 2000, which was finally disposed of by this Court on 12.2.2001 with direction to the authorities to conclude the enquiry within three months. In pursuance thereof, the District Magistrate, Bareilly sanctioned provisional pension to the petitioner with effect from January, 2003. However, the respondents withheld all retiral benefits of the petitioner including GPF, leave encashment, amount of insurance, gratuity etc due since 1.10.2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the aforesaid criminal case. The Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Gorakhpur, vide judgement dated 13.8.2009, acquitted the petitioner in Special Sessions Trial Case No. 5 of 2000 (State v. Pancham Lal & Ors) under Sections 420, 406, 477A, 109, 120B IPC and Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish that M/s Arjun Ji & sons (the contractor), who had supplied the furnitures, had submitted forged bills or that Shri Pancham Lal and Shri Amrit Lal (the petitioner) were paid any illegal gratification for clearing the bills. The said acquittal order had been assailed by the State Government by filing Government Appeal No.8414 of 2009, which was dismissed by this Court on 17.5.2012. It is also relevant to indicate here that meanwhile the petitioner had preferred Writ A No. 18322 of 2004 (Amrit Lal v. State of UP & ors), which was disposed of by this Court on 24.11.2010 with direction to the State Government for considering the matter with regard to payment of balance of the retiral dues to the petitioner after taking into account the judgment of acquittal and appeal. When the said order was not complied with, the petitioner had proceeded to file Contempt Petition No. 2866 of 2011. Thereafter the Additional Director (Treasury & Pension) Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur issued an order dated 27.9.2011 and released certain amount but withheld the amount of gratuity. On 15.10.2011 the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur passed an order on 15.10.2011 for payment of GPF amount. The said order had been assailed by the petitioner by means of Writ A No.19693 of 2013 and this Court vide order dated 1.8.2014 had proceeded to dispose of the writ petition with following observations: -
"Amrit Lal, who retired as District Election Officer has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 27.7.2011 by which the Chief Election Officer has refused to release the gratuity amount subject to pendency of the Criminal Appeal No. 8414 of 2009. In respect to the charges as are mentioned in the impugned order the department did not proceed rather only a criminal case was lodged against the petitioner and against the order of acquittal the appeal i.e. appeal no. 8414 of 2009 was filed in this court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties there is no dispute about the fact that the aforesaid criminal appeal was dismissed vide order of this Court dated 17.5.2012, copy of which was shown during the course of arguments.
In view of the aforesaid dismissal of the appeal now there is no hurdle in view of the impugned order for payment of the gratuity amount to the petitioner.
Firstly the pendency of the Criminal Appeal filed by the State cannot be said to be a val
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
