Shri Ashok Kumar vs North Delhi Power Ltd. And Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 3961 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 510/2012


%                                                     5th September, 2013

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR                                           ..... Petitioner
                          Through:        Mr. Anuj Soni, Advocate.



                                 Versus



NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. AND ANR.               ..... Respondents
                 Through:   Mr. Vikram Nandrajog, Advocate
                           with Mr. Sushil Jaswal, Advocate.
                           Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate for
                           respondent No.2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           Petitioner, by this writ petition, seeks direction for release of his

terminal benefits which were payable on his retirement from the respondent

No.1/ North Delhi Power Ltd.(now known as Tata Power Delhi Distribution

Ltd.) on 31.10.2011. The only ground on which payment of terminal

benefits was withheld was that a criminal case was pending against the

W.P.(C) No.510/2012                                          Page 1 of 3
 petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the connected relevant

provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.           The issue in the present case as to entitlement of an employer to

withhold the terminal benefits such as gratuity and/or pension is covered by

a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand

and Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. in Civil Appeal

No.6770/2013 decided on 14.8.2013.         In the case of Jitendra Kumar

Srivastava (supra) Supreme Court has said that terminal benefits such as

pension and gratuity are not a bounty. Supreme Court has further held that

such benefits cannot be taken away as per Article 300A of the Constitution

of India without following the due procedure of law. Supreme Court has

further held that merely because a criminal case or departmental proceedings

are pending against an employee, terminal benefits cannot be withheld and

can only be withheld when there is a finding of grave misconduct against the

employee.

3.           Admittedly, in the present case no departmental proceedings are

pending against the petitioner and there is no judgment against the petitioner

in the criminal case. Accordingly, following the ratio in the case of Jitendra

Kumar Srivastava (supra) the writ petition is allowed and the respondent

Nos.1 and 2, namely, North Delhi Power Ltd and DVB Employees Terminal

W.P.(C) No.510/2012                                       Page 2 of 3
 Benefit Fund are directed to release the terminal benefits of the petitioner.

Terminal benefits be released by the respondents within two months from

today. In case, the terminal benefits are not paid within two months from

today, thereafter petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum

simple. Parties are left to bear their own costs.




SEPTEMBER 05, 2013                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne