Allahabad High Court
Hari Ram Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13846 of 2020
Petitioner :- Hari Ram Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
This petition challenges an order dated 21 September 2020 pursuant to which the claim of the petitioner for release of gratuity has been refused on the ground of pendency of a criminal case being Case Crime No.88 of 2006. According to learned counsel, in the aforesaid case evidence is being recorded and although the petitioner retired in 2018, no gratuity has been paid. The respondents assert that the gratuity has been withheld in light of the provisions made in Regulation 919-A of the Civil Services Regulation as applicable in the State of U.P.
Dealing with the ambit and scope of the power conferred by that Regulation, this Court in Krishna Chandra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others [2019 ADJOnline 0038] held thus:-
"As is evident from the principles enunciated in Faini Singh, while recognizing the power of the State to withhold gratuity and to fix a provisional pension during the pendency of judicial or departmental proceedings, the Division Bench further proceeded to hold that the action of withholding such benefits must be preceded by due application of mind and consideration of whether the charges levelled against the employee were serious and related to grave misconduct. The Division Bench in Faini Singh further proceeded to observe that there must be a due application of mind by the respondents while invoking the provisions of Regulation 919-A, as to whether any pecuniary loss stood caused to the Government or whether the allegations against the employee were of a serious crime, grave misconduct or negligence during his service. The Division Bench, essentially, highlighted that while the power did exist, the same must be exercised with due circumspection and action not taken mechanically.
The subsistence of judicial proceedings or departmental inquiry against a retiring government servant would, at best, lead to a position where the State-respondents would be entitled to invoke these provisions. Independently and as was mandated by the Division Bench in Faini Singh, the competent authority must take into consideration the nature of allegations levelled, gravity of the charge against the retiring government servant, the role ascribed to the government servant in the commission of the crime, nature of offenses of which he is charged and other relevant factors. The decision to withhold would, thus, have to be taken upon due consideration of the above and other germane factors."
In view of the aforesaid, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the ends of justice would merit the matter being remitted to the respondent no.2 for consideration of the claim afresh and bearing in mind the decision of the Court in Krishna Chandra Pandey.
Accordingly, the writ petition shall stand disposed of with the following directions. The second respondent shall reevaluate the claim of the petitioner in light of the judgment rendered in Krishna Chandra Pandey and conclude the exercise of consideration within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. All contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open. The order impugned in this petition shall abide by the fresh decision that the respondent shall now take.
Order Date :- 15.3.2021
Vivek Kr.
