The Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Respondents to pay the allowances/post-retiral benefits to the Petitioner in accordance with the rules and regulations.
A single judge bench of this Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice Irshad Ali expound that once the appellant had retired from service, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental inquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant.
Brief Facts:
The present writ petition was filed before this Court seeking a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.02.2007 passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 30.09.2003 with a further prayer to issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.3 to release the amount of Rs.42,403/- along with interest of 14% that has been illegally deducted in respect of loan case.
The Petitioner was working as a Branch Manager, who, after completion of service on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service on 31.12.2001. For retiral benefits, the Petitioner preferred representation dated 18.07.2005 before the Managing Director, however, no heed was paid to the same. The Petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act asking the action taken regarding deductions made against his retirement dues. By the information provided, the Petitioner learned that the deductions were made against certain loan amounts disbursed by him in favor of certain persons. In regard to aforesaid deductions, the Petitioner made several representations/communications with the bank authorities and when there was no response, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the deductions made from gratuity, leave encashment, security, and insurance claim of the Petitioner are in violation of Rule 79(1)(d) of the Bank Service Rules, 1976. He further submitted that the gratuity cannot be adjusted/attached even against a decree obtained from a civil, criminal, or revenue Court as it is protected under the Payment of Gratuity Act. He lastly submitted that there is no pension scheme in the bank and retiral dues are the only source of livelihood after retirement, and the Respondent – the bank has committed gross illegality in delaying/deducting the same.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the order dated 30.09.2003 passed by the Managing Director of the Respondent – the bank was passed based on disciplinary proceedings, in which the Petitioner was found guilty of the loss of Rs.1,15,000/- with interest and accordingly, recovery was directed to be made from post-retiral benefits of the Petitioner.
He further submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that the recovery of the amount/loss caused to the department by the employee is recoverable from the gratuity and other payable post-retiral dues and therefore, there is no illegality in the recovery made by the Respondent – bank from retiral benefits of the Petitioner.
Observations of the Court:
This Court concurred with the ratios laid down in the following judgments-
- Dev Prakash Tewari Vs. U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow, and others; (2014) 7 SCC 260- There is no provision in the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 for initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceeding after the retirement of the appellant nor is there any provision stating that in case of misconduct is established a deduction could be made from his retiral benefits.
- Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, OSFG and others; (1999) 3 SCC 666 and Brij Mohan V. State of U.P. and 5 Ors.; Writ-A No.42071 of 2016, order dated 16.01.2017- Once the appellant had retired from service, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant.
After a perusal of the cases, it was evident to the Court that there is no provision in the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 for initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement nor is there any provision stating that in case of misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from the retiral benefits.
Applying the above position of law to the facts of the current case, the bench observed that once the Petitioner had retired from service on 31.12.2001, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental proceeding even to impose any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the Petitioner. In the absence of such an authority, the Petitioner was entitled to full retirement benefits on retirement.
The decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court, allowing the writ petition quashed the impugned orders dated 20.02.2007 and 30.09.2003.
Case Title: Virendra K Singh Chauhan vs - State Of U.P.Thr. Prin Secy Co-Operative And 2 Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Irshad Ali
Case no.: WRIT - A No. - 2000639 of 2008
Advocate for the Appellant: - Piysh Asthana,Desh Deepak Singh,Rajeev Singh,Smriti Pandey
Advocate for the Respondents: - - C.S.C,Balram Yadav
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :