Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. Madhavi Devi, J
J. Sudarshan Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.15202 OF 2019
Key Points: - The petition sought mandamus to release gratuity and leave encashment with interest and argued Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 overrides service rules. (!) - Enquiry proceedings against the petitioner continued after retirement; the court notes absence of rules permitting continuation post-retirement and non-availability of authority to withhold retiral benefits. (!) (!) - Court relied on Mohd. Kareem and Bhagirathi Jena line of authorities to hold that without statutory provision authorizing post-retirement continuation or recovery from retirement benefits, such actions are not permissible. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Court observed that the right to pension is a property right under Article 300-A and cannot be deprived without law; executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions. (!) (!) - The impugned order directing withholding and the ongoing disciplinary proceedings post-retirement were set aside; respondents were directed to refund withheld amounts with interest (6%) within specified time. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment cites and applies multiple Supreme Court decisions (Bhagirathi Jena, Dev Prakash Tewari, Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, Kadirkhan Pathan) to support non-continuation of proceedings post-retirement absent rule authority. (!) (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges illegal withholding of retiral benefits post-retirement due to pending disciplinary proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties debate whether disciplinary proceedings can continue after superannuation in the absence of enabling rules. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court finds disciplinary proceedings invalid post-retirement absent specific rules, ordering release of withheld benefits. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
O R D E R
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in withholding the retirement benefits of the petitioner, i.e., gratuity and leave encashment benefits, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also as contrary to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and consequently to direct the respondents to release the gratuity and leave encashment amounts to the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum from 03.07.2014 till the date of payment and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner was appointed in the 2nd respondent Corporation on 23.02.1989 as Material Assistant and thereafter, he was promoted as Seeds Officer in the year 1991 and was also granted subsequent promotions. It is submitted that while the petitioner was working as District Manager, a charge memo was given to the petitioner on 11.10.2012 framing two charges against the petitioner. Charge No.1 was that the petitioner has failed to recover huge outstanding dues and Charge No.2 was that the petitioner did not properly supervise the activities of the petitioner’s subordinates which resulted in shortage of seeds. The petitioner claims to have submitted his explanation on 05.11.2012 along with relevant material in support of his explanation pointing out that there was no dereliction of duty or lack of supervision by him as alleged in the charge memo. It is submitted that thereafter, an amended charge memo was issued on 08.11.2013 seeking to amend Charge No.2. The petitioner claims to have submitted further explanation on 06.12.2013 pointing out that since the petitioner is the supervising authority, he cannot be held responsible for any shortage of seeds and that it would be only the store keeper who would be responsible. It is submitted that the petitioner has retired from service on 03.07.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation and according to him, there was no power under the rules of the Corporation to continue the enquiry against any employee after retirement. It is submitted that since there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner, he appeared before the enquiry officer and submitted his explanation on 29.12.2016 and thereafter, the enquiry officer appears to have submitted his report on 01.03.2017 in which the explanation of the petitioner has not been taken into account. Thereafter, on 14.03.2017, the petitioner’s explanation was called for on the said enquiry report and the petitioner has submitted his explanation and on the ground that the enquiry is pending against the petitioner, the petitioner has not been given the benefits of gratuity and leave encashment. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed submitting that this Court, while deciding the case of a similar employee who was involved in more serious charges and the enquiry has been conducted therein, has held that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 would prevail over any Service Rules which bars non-payment of gratuity to an employee.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the submissions made in the writ affidavit, has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Kareem Vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Hyderabad and another1I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.16993 of 2020 and W.P.No.16993 of 2020 dt.30.08.2024, wherein the petitioner was a store keeper in the 2nd respondent Corpora
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
