Patna High Court
Harshit Narayan Singh vs The Food Corporation Of India And Ors on 29 April, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7796 of 2016
======================================================
Harshit Narayan Singh s/o Late Ram Bhaju Singh r/o Dumrawan,p/s-
Ashawan,District-Nalada at present r/o Mohalla- Jay Prakash Nagar,south of
canal p/s-Rajiv Nagar District-Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Food Corporation Of India through the Managing Director, 16-20
Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi.
2. The Executive Director, East Food corporation of India,10-A Middletion
Road, Kolkatta-71.
3. The General Manager Food corporation of India,Arunachal Bhawan,
Exibition Road,Patna.
4. The Area Manager,Food Corporation of India,Gaya.
5. The Manager,District Office,Food Corporation of India,Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar
For the FCI : Mr. P.K. Verma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dr. Anand Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-04-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
senior counsel for the Food Corporation of India.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ
directing the competent respondent to grant full gratuity to the
petitioner with interest, amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees
Ten Lakhs), based on the last drawn salary by him, instead of
Rs. 4,23,294/- (Rupees Four Lakh Twenty-Three Thousand Two
Hundred Ninety-Four), which was calculated on the basis of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7796 of 2016 dt.29-04-2025
2/6
punishment order contained in reference letter No. 690 dated
19.01.2015
, a copy of which was served upon the petitioner on
11.02.2015.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was appointed in the Food Corporation of India in the
year 1973, and with the span of time, he was promoted initially
to Assistant Grade II, and subsequently to Assistant Grade III.
Counsel further submits that during his service, a departmental
proceeding was conducted against the petitioner, in which the
petitioner was imposed a punishment vide order No. 683 dated
19.01.2015, with punishment of, " A penalty of reduction to the
initial pay in the time scale pay of AG II (D) till retirement
along with the recovery of Rs. 1.50 Lakhs (Rupees One Lakh
Fifty Thousand) only from terminal benefits, excluding gratuity.
Counsel further submits that the gratuity of the employee is used
to be paid according to the special law, namely, the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1974).
Counsel further submits that according to Section 4 of the Act of
1974, the total work period of the petitioner in FCI is 38 years
(37 years, 11 months, and 2 days), from the date of his initial
appointment in the FCI, i.e., 23.02.1977 and his date of
retirement is 31.01.2015.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7796 of 2016 dt.29-04-2025
4. Counsel further submits that the pay scale issued to
the petitioner, which is annexed as Annexure-9, indicates that
his last drawn salary was Rs. 57,465/- (Rupees Fifty-Seven
Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Five), and as per the calculation
under Section 4(2) of the Act of 1974, the gratuity amount
comes to Rs. 12,59,809.61/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Fifty-Nine
Thousand Eight Hundred Nine and Sixty-One Paise). However,
since the upper ceiling for gratuity payment is Rs. 10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakh), he submits that the petitioner is entitled to
receive the full admissible amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as gratuity.
Despite this, the Food Corporation of India has paid only Rs.
4,23,294/- (Rupees Four Lakh Twenty-Three Thousand Two
Hundred Ninety-Four) to the petitioner. Counsel further submits
that the petitioner is entitled to the balance amount of gratuity
along with 18% compound interest. He also submits that the
petitioner filed a detailed representation before the respondent
on 09.11.2015, but no action has been taken till date. Therefore,
the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this
Court.
5. Learned senior counsel for the Food Corporation of
India submits that the petitioner had challenged the punishment
order dated 19.01.2015 before this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7796 of 2016 dt.29-04-2025
15984 of 2015, and after the disposal of the said writ petition, he
filed a Civil Review bearing No. 290 of 2023, which is still
pending. Counsel further submits that here punishment order is
not challenged, therefore, what is to be decided it has to be
decided in the light of decision dated 19.01.2015. He submits
that the affect of the punishment order, the petitioner's last
drawn salary has deducted, and accordingly, the gratuity amount
was automatically deducted, when calculated under Section 4(2)
of the Act of 1974. Counsel submits that the punishment order
shall prevail upon the petitioner and only due to this reason the
gratuity of the petitioner has deducted.
6. Learned senior Counsel relied on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v.
Rabindranath Choubey, reported in AIR 2020 SC 2978, and
submits that it is well within the power of the disciplinary
authority to withhold the gratuity. The employer can withhold
the payment of gratuity to the employee even after his
superannuation from service, in light of the pendency of
disciplinary proceedings against him. Counsel further submits
that in the present case, the disciplinary proceeding was pending
against the petitioner for a long period during his employment,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7796 of 2016 dt.29-04-2025
and a specific order was passed regarding the deduction of the
pay scale, which definitely affect his entitlement to gratuity.
However, the gratuity was calculated in accordance with the
provisions of the Act of 1974. Counsel further submits that the
petitioner's gratuity has been duly calculated after the final
order was passed and has been paid as per Annexure-A of the
supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the respondent.
7. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the
order dated 19.01.2015, it transpires to this Court that the only
dispute between the parties is the determination of the amount
of gratuity. Section 7(2) of the Act of 1974 clearly provides that
it is the Controlling Authority who is competent under law to
determine the amount of gratuity payable. The petitioner has
submitted a representation before the authority, which is
annexed as Annexure-10, however, it transpires to this Court
that no response has been made by the employer. Instead, the
gratuity has been calculated solely in light of the punishment
order dated 19.01.2015. The petitioner is aggrieved by this
decision and submits that the petitioner is not entitled to only
Rs. 4,23,294/- (Rupees Four Lakh Twenty-Three Thousand Two
Hundred Ninety-Four) but rather to the full admissible amount
of gratuity, i.e., Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh).
Patna High Court CWJC No.7796 of 2016 dt.29-04-2025
8. In this background, the writ petition stands
disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an
application before the Controlling Authority under the Act of
1974 within 30 days from the date of receipt or production of
this order. The Controlling Authority, upon issuance of notice to
both the employer and the employee, shall determine the
amount of gratuity payable in accordance with law. Thereafter,
the petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue any legal remedy
available to him under the provisions of the Act of 1974.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06.05.2025
Transmission Date NA
