Harendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 8263 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7684 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Harendra Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Pal,Amitrana
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

On account of pendency of Case Crime No. 366 of 2007, under Section 384 IPC, petitioner's gratuity has been withheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the action of the respondents in withholding gratuity is bad in law. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another, decided on 14th August, 2013 to submit that pension and gratuity being property cannot be deprived except by authority of law.

A Full Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 40 of 2017 (Shivagopal Vs. State of U.P. and others) examined the relevant provisions of Civil Service Regulations to hold that withholding of gratuity and regular pension on account of pendency of a criminal case is not inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The only benefit, which would be admissible to such employee, is the payment of provisional pension. In such circumstances, withholding of gratuity cannot be said to be arbitrary. The withholding of gratuity is otherwise in accordance with law and, therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand (supra) would have no applicability in the facts of the present case.

The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 19.7.2021

Ranjeet Sahu