Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suraj Bhan vs Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. ... on 10 April, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049640
CWP-4689-2017(O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:049640
216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-4689-2017(O&M)
Date of decision: 10.04.2024
Suraj Bhan
...Petitioners
VERSUS
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr.Shivam Malik, Advocate for
Ms. Santosh Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Geeta Rani, Advocate, for the respondents.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the action of the respondents by which the gratuity of the petitioner to
the tune of Rs. 87,405/- has been withheld without passing any order to this
effect and the amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 4,56,560/-, the arrears of
pension to the tune of Rs. 3,86,400/- and the amount of commutation of pension
to the tune of Rs. 3,86,041/- has been released on 12.10.2015 i.e. after a delay
of more than 21 months without any interest on the delayed payments with a
further prayer to direct the respondents to release the withheld amount of
gratuity to the tune of Rs. 4,56,560/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049640
CWP-4689-2017(O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:049640
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that there are two fold grievances in the present case. Firstly, the retiral benefits
were paid to the petitioner in the year 2015, whereas the petitioner retired on
31.12.2013 as Assistant Foreman. He submitted that there is no justification for
the delayed payments of the retiral benefits. Secondly, the respondent-Nigam
has deducted an amount of Rs. 87,405/- from the gratuity of the petitioner on
the ground that before his retirement a charge-sheet was issued to him and after
his retirement an order of punishment has been passed which has been annexed
as Annexure R-1 with the reply dated 12.06.2014. He submitted that the
aforesaid order has been passed by which it has been directed that an amount
equivalent to one annual increment be recovered from the pensionary benefits
of the petitioner. He submitted that the aforesaid order which is in the nature of
an order of punishment on the basis of the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner
prior to his retirement but the aforesaid order has been passed after his
retirement without the authority of law. He submitted that although there is no
specific challenge to the aforesaid order because the aforesaid order was not
available with the petitioner but his prayer challenging the same may be
considered under para No.16 (v) of the petition since the aforesaid order was
not available with the petitioner. He submitted that the aforesaid order is
without the authority of law in view of the fact that after the retirement of the
petitioner the master and servant relationship ceased to exist. He submitted
that no such order of punishment could have been passed against the petitioner
unless it is so permitted under any law or any Statutory Rules etc. He submitted
that Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB) Employees (Punishment &
Appeal) Regulations, 1990 are applicable to the petitioner since the charge-
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049640
CWP-4689-2017(O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:049640
sheet was issued to the petitioner under Rules 7 & 8 of the aforesaid Rules but
there is no such provision under the aforesaid Rules to have proceeded with
the charge-sheet after the retirement. He submitted that at the time when the
punishment order was passed in the year 2014, there had been no adoption of
the Punjab Civil Services Rules, by the respondent-Nigam and therefore, there
was no question of applicability of Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services
Rules. He submitted that Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as
applicable to the State of Haryana can also apply to an instrumentality of the
State only if the same are adopted but they were never adopted at the time
when the order of punishment (Annexure R-1) was passed in year 2014 and
therefore, such an order of punishment was without the authority of law since
no power was vested with the respondent-Nigam to have passed such an order
after the retirement of the petitioner. He submitted that so far as the delay in
retiral benefits of the petitioner is concerned, the stand of the respondent-Nigam
as per Annexure R-2 was that the petitioner did not provide some record which
was in his possession before the retirement. He submitted that the stand taken
by the respondent-Nigam was totally vague and no such letter could have even
been issued and even the letter (Annexure R-2) issued was without the
authority of law since this was issued on 03.09.2014 and the petitioner was not
an employee of the respondent-Nigam and the master servant relationship did
not exist at all and in this way, there is no justification at all to have withheld
the retiral benefits of the petitioner for a period of two years.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-Nigam submitted that the aforesaid order of punishment (Annexure
R-1) has been passed in view of the provisions of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049640
CWP-4689-2017(O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:049640
Civil Services Rules as applicable to the State of Haryana and therefore, the
respondent-Nigam could have continued the proceedings in the charge-sheet
even after the retirement. With respect to delay in the retiral benefits, she
submitted while referring to the reply filed by the respondent-Nigam that the
petitioner did not submit the relevant record which was in his possession prior
to his retirement and that was the reason as to why there had been a delay.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. So far as the first grievance of the petitioner with regard to
passing of the order of punishment (Annexure R-1) is concerned, the petitioner
retired on 31.12.2013 as Assistant Foreman and prior to his retirement, one
charge-sheet was issued against him but no final order was passed in this regard
prior to his retirement. After his retirement, the order of punishment (Annexure
R-1) has been passed whereby it has been directed that amount equivalent to
one annual increment be recovered from the pensionary benefits of the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-Nigam has stated that even after
the retirement such an action could have been taken because of the
applicability of Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as applicable to the
State of Haryana. However, the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the aforesaid Rules were not applicable to the respondent-Nigam because
they were never adopted by the respondent-Nigam at the time when the
aforesaid order of punishment (Annexure R-1) was passed in the year 2014. The
law in this regard is no longer res integra. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Ajit Singh Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, CWP No.12171 of
2010, decided on 19.01.2012 held as under:-
"3. If the charge-sheet had been established and if there was any
charge-sheet which could be said to be lawfully instituted subsequent
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049640
CWP-4689-2017(O&M) -5- 2024:PHHC:049640
to the retirement, then it is possible to sustain the defence. The
charge-sheets issued on 23.08.2006 and 27.10.2006 had been
dropped even before his retirement. The charge-sheet issued in 2009
was per se impermissible, for, there is no provision anywhere under
the relevant rules under which a charge-sheet could have been issued
subsequent to his retirement. A show cause notice of the year 2007
cannot also be said to cause any impediment for payment of retiral
dues, so long as there was no charge-sheet framed subsequent to the
show cause notice before his retirement. None of the actions which
the respondents had against the petitioner really afforded a ground
for denying to the petitioner the retiral dues.
4. There have been ample authorities from this Court as well as from
the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the retirement dues are no bounty for
an employer to give to his employee. On the other hand, it is an
earned wage during the service but staggered for disbursal by terms
of employment. The employer ought to know that a person that makes
way for a whole new crop to come on his superannuation, ought to go
with his head held high and not feel burdened to frustration by how
the employer treats him. The delay caused to more than two years, in
my view, was not justified at all and in terms of the judgments which
this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held, the retiral
dues which had been paid subsequently in September to November
2009 shall also been mulcted with interest at 18% per annum on the
amount ascertained with effect from 2 months from the date of
superannuation till date of payment. This ought to sound a ring of
caution to the respondents that they treat their employees, who go out
of retirement, with respect that they deserve. Any contumacious
default or excuses by pendency of charge-sheets which are no longer
continued at the time of retirement or which are initiated subsequent
to retirement against the rules must be visited with serious
consequences for the establishment. I will reject the contention that
there was no justification for delayed payment for the retiral dues".
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049640
CWP-4689-2017(O&M) -6- 2024:PHHC:049640
6. A Division Bench of this Court in Hans Raj Sharma Versus Uttar
Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, CWP-151-2004, decided on 29.07.2004
held as under:-
"5. It has been settled by the Supreme Court in case of P.R. Nayak vs.
Union of India, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 554 that issuance of a
charge-sheet is sine-qua-non for initiation of departmental enquiry.
Till date, no charge-sheet has been issued. There is no justification for
withholding the pension of the petitioner".
7. A Division Bench of this Court Ashok Kumar Dhamija Versus
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, CWP-7949-2005,
decided on 21.09.2006 held as under:-
"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
considered view that the respondents could not have withheld any
amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner on account of allegations
which have emanated after the date of his retirement. Such a course is
not available to the respondents. In some what similar circumstances,
this Court has earlier also in the case of Hans Raj Sharma vs. Uttar
Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others 9Civil Writ Petition
No.152 of 2004, decided on October 29, 2004) has allowed the writ
petition by following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.R.
Naik vs. Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 554. It has been laid down in
the aofrementioned judgment that issuance of charge-sheet for
initiation of departmental enquiry is a sine qua non."
8. There is nothing on record to show that in the year 2014 when the
aforesaid order of punishment (Annexure R-1) was passed, the respondent-
Nigam had adopted the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services, Rules as
applicable to the State of Haryana since the respondent-Nigam is an
instrumentality of the State and for the purpose of making applicability of the
Rules, it has to be adopted. Rather, on the other hand, it has been specifically
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049640
CWP-4689-2017(O&M) -7- 2024:PHHC:049640
observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Kirat Gopal Versus Haryana
Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others, CWP No.13039-1999, decided on
29.03.2000 that the aforesaid Rules were not adopted by the respondent-
Nigam. Apart from the above, there is nothing in the Rules of 1990 to show
that even after the retirement of an employee, an order of punishment can be
passed in continuation of the charge-sheet issued to him prior to his retirement.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that such an order (Annexure R-1) was
without the authority of law and against the Rules of 1990. Therefore, no such
order of recovery of any amount equivalent to one annual increment could
have been recovered from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.
9. So far as the second grievance of the petitioner with regard to
delayed payment is concerned, the petitioner retired on 31.12.2013 and he has
been paid retiral benefits after a period of two years. The only reason given by
the learned counsel for the respondent-Nigam was because the petitioner did
not hand over some official record or material while he was in service and after
his retirement, he was responsible for the same and therefore, the delay has
been caused in the disbursement of the retiral benefits. This Court is of the view
that such kind of stand taken by the respondent-Nigam is not sustainable since
the petitioner already stood retired on 31.12.2013 and thereafter, the master
servant relationship ceased to exist. Such kind of letter (Annexure R-2) was also
without the authority of law. There was no valid justification for delaying the
retiral benefits to the petitioner. Therefore, in view of Full Bench judgment of
this Court in A.S. Randhawa Versus State of Punjab and others, 1997(3)
SCT 468, the petitioner is also entitled for interest on the delayed payments @
6% per annum (simple).
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049640
CWP-4689-2017(O&M) -8- 2024:PHHC:049640
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
petition is allowed. The order dated 12.06.2014 (Annexure R-1) is set aside.
The respondents are directed to pay the amount which has been withheld from
the gratuity of the petitioner within a period of three months from today
alongwith interest @ 6% per annum (simple). The interest on the retiral benefits
as aforesaid shall also be paid within a period of three months from today
alongwith interest @ 6% per annum (simple). In case the aforesaid amount is
not paid within a period of three months from today, then the petitioner shall be
entitled for a future rate of @ 9% per annum (simple).
11. Since the retiral benefits of the petitioner were delayed for no
justifiable reason and order of punishment (Annexure R-1) was passed without
the authority of law which affected the Constitutional Rights of the petitioner
under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is also entitled for
costs which are assessed as Rs. 10,000/-. The aforesaid costs shall also be paid
to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
10.04.2024 JUDGE
rakesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
