Allahabad High Court
Smt. Beena Singh And Another vs The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 27 March, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2374 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Beena Singh And Another
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Deptt. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shanker Lal
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Shanker Lal, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that husband of petitioner no. 1 was working on the post of Manager, Grade-III (Administration) and retired from service on 31.10.2017 on attaining age of superannuation. Subsequent to his superannuation certain post retiral dues including EPF was paid to him and part of the amount of Gratuity was paid but the major part of Gratuity remained pending. Husband of the petitioner unfortunately died on 21.11.2021. After his death respondents passed an order dated 19.01.2023, seeking to recover amount of Rs.27,09,239/- from the remaining amount of gratuity payable to the husband of the petitioner.
3. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that even if it is assumed that husband of the petitioner is liable to pay certain due to the Corporation, same cannot be recovered from the Gratuity of the deceased employee as there is no provision for the same under the Gratuity Act, 1972.
4. Sri Shanker Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents was granted time to inform this Court as to the provisions under which Gratuity payable to the husband of the petitioner has been stopped and recovery is sought to be made from the same.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that there is no such provision under which gratuity of an employee can be stopped or recovery can be made from the same.
6. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it is noticed that Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act, which deals with payment of gratuity provides that gratuity of an employee can be withheld only when circumstances as enunciated in Section 4(6) of the Act are made out. In the present case there is no order passed against the petitioner and no proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Satish Chand Rajput Vs. State of U.P. - Writ-A No. 6847 of 2022, where it has been provided that no proceedings can be initiated after the retirement as there is no such provision under the Rules and considering that even after retirement no proceedings have been initiated and hence it can be safely concluded that respondents cannot deduct any amount from the gratuity at this stage and withholding payment of gratuity by the respondents is illegal and arbitrary and hence order dated 19.01.2023, is liable to be set aside.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that impugned order dated 19.01.2023, being illegal and arbitrary is hereby set aside.
9. The writ petition is allowed.
10. Respondents are directed to pay amount of gratuity which has been withheld, to the petitioner within three months from today. The respondents shall also pay interest at the rate of 7% as provided under Section 7(3-a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act from the date of retirement till actual payment/realisation.
Order Date :- 27.3.2023
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
