Allahabad High Court
Smt.Sukhraj Kaur vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 4 August, 2023
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:156599
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12710 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt.Sukhraj Kaur
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Mahendra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner who is retired as Constable from Civil Police on 31.03.2020 is aggrieved by non-payment of gratuity amount to the petitioner on account of pendency of a criminal case.
3. He submits that in connection with the criminal case being Case Crime No. 64 of 2013 two other police officials of the rank of Station House Officer and Investigating Officer were implicated and yet their entire post retirement benefits including the gratuity amount has been released. Thus, he claims to have been discriminated against in the matter of payment of relevant dues to the extent of gratuity. He has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Udai Naraian Ojha v. State of U.P. Thru. its Secy. and others passed in Writ A No.27391 of 2012 decided on 21.01.2020 in which while allowing the writ petition vide paragraph 9 and 10, the Court has held thus:
"9. Even otherwise, the period of 4 years is a reasonable period from the date of the event, leading to submission of charge-sheet and the employee cannot be made to suffer for any un-explained or undue delay on the part of the State or the investigating agency. It is, otherwise, not shown by the respondents that such delay was attributed to any act or omission on part of the petitioner. The right of State to proceed in accordance with law, is otherwise available by virtue of Article 351 of Civil Services Regulations if the charges are found proved in judicial proceedings and the public interest also would not be adversely affected, if the gratuity due is paid to the government servant. In view of the above discussions, this Court has no hesitation in holding that action of respondents in withholding payment of gratuity to petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and cannot be sustained.
10. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 28.1.2012 passed by the respondent no. 3, so far as it relates withholding of gratuity payable to petitioner is concerned, is set aside. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to forthwith release the withheld amount of gratuity together with 6% interest. In case the amount is not paid within four months from today, the petitioner shall be entitled to enhanced rate of interest at the rate of 8% per annum, and it shall be open for the authorities of the State to realise the additional interest from the salary of the officer found resonsible for not ensuring release of gratuity to petitioner in terms of this order."
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the above regard, Superintendent of Police has already made a recommendation to the Finance Controller, U.P., Police Headquaters, Prayagraj on 09.09.2021 and yet no heed has been paid to the grievance of the petitioner. Petitioner is also said to have made representation on 25.02.2022.
5. Learned Standing Counsel does not have any objection, in the event direction is issued to the competent authority to look into and consider the grievance of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with direction that in the event petitioner makes a fresh representation within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of in the light of the discretion made hereinabove and the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner and also relevant laws and rules, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of next two months' time.
Order Date :- 4.8.2023
Deepika
