IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : July 08, 2025 General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Punjab, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus K.C. Sharma and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate, for Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

None for respondents No. 2 and 3.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Appellate Authority envisaged under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as ‘1972 Act’) by which, the direction has been given to the petitioner-Food Corporation of India to take into account the last pay drawn by the respondent No.1-workman at the time of his retirement on 31.01.2010 ignoring the order dated 03.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the competent authority imposing the punishment of reduction upon respondent No.1 copy of which order has been attached as P-1 and the consequent reduction of his basic pay to Rs.24,870/-.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that at the time when the respondent No.1-workman attained the age of superannuation, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were already pending which proceedings were continued keeping in view Regulation 60-A of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 according to which, the disciplinary proceedings pending against an employee will continue by a deeming fiction that the employee concerned for the purpose of such proceeding is in service with the only condition stipulated therein that such disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee who may retire during the proceedings are to be decided within a period of 12 months of date of delivery of charge-sheet to the accused and in the present case, the pending disciplinary proceedings against the respondent-employee were decided within a period of 12 months of his retirement, which factum has been ignored by the appellate authority while giving the direction to revise the gratuity admissible to the respondent No.1-workman.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-FCI submits that the order of punishment was never challenged by the respondent No.1-workman and the same attained finality and therefore, the last pay drawn admissible to the respondent No.1-workman being Rs.24,870/- which was taken up for consideration for the calculation of gratuity, was perfectly valid and legal hence, the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the authorities concerned may kindly be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-workman argues that once the respondent No.1-workman had retired from service on 31.01.2010, any order of punishment passed thereafter, cannot take away the last pay drawn which was actually drawn by the respondent No.1-workman at the time of his retirement on 31.01.2010.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-workman submits that as the master and servant relationship between respondent No.1 and petitioner had come to an end, any order of punishment passed after the retirement does not give any authority to revise and lessen the last pay drawn and therefore, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority exercising jurisdiction under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is perfectly valid and legal and is liable to be upheld especially when there is no loss caused to the petitioner at the hands of the respondent No.1-workman.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-workman further submits that once the post on which respondent No.1 worked did not entail pension was not a pensionary job, no order of punishment could have been passed after the retirement.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-workman further submits that the claim of the respondent No.1-workman is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.5848- 49 of 2014