Punjab-Haryana High Court
Saran Singh vs Punjab Agro Foodgrains And Ors on 16 January, 2025
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005752
CWP-10290-2016 & connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(245) CWP-10290-2016
Date of Decision : January 16, 2025
Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd and another .. Petitioners
Versus
Mohan Singh and others .. Respondents
(2) CWP-10315-2016
Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd and another .. Petitioners
Versus
Rajinder Pal and others .. Respondents
(3) CWP-4287-2016
Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd and another .. Petitioners
Versus
Gurmail Singh and others .. Respondents
(4) CWP-10338-2016
Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd and another .. Petitioners
Versus
Tarsem Chand Bhardwaj and others .. Respondents
(5) CWP-13081-2016
Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd and another .. Petitioners
Versus
Saran Singh and others .. Respondents
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 00:45:09 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005752
CWP-10290-2016 & connected cases 2
(6) CWP-14365-2016
Saran Singh .. Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Agro Foodgrains and others .. Respondents
(7) CWP-14369-2016
Rajinder Pal .. Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Agro Industries Corporation and others .. Respondents
(8) CWP-14070-2016
Tarsem Chand Bhardwaj .. Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Agro Industries Corporation and others .. Respondents
(9) CWP-19730-2017
Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd and another .. Petitioners
Versus
Charanjit Singh and others .. Respondents
(10) CWP-19768-2017
Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd and another .. Petitioners
Versus
Shiv Sham Singh Sodhi and others .. Respondents
(11) CWP-19732-2017
Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd and another .. Petitioners
Versus
Kulwant Singh and others .. Respondents
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 00:45:09 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005752
CWP-10290-2016 & connected cases 3
(12) CWP-22552-2018
Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd and another .. Petitioners
Versus
Kavita Walia and others .. Respondents
(13) CWP-697-2019
Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd and another .. Petitioners
Versus
Shamsher Singh and others .. Respondents
(14) CWP-24868-2018
Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd and another .. Petitioners
Versus
Ajaib Singh and others .. Respondents
(15) CWP-2826-2019
Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd and another .. Petitioners
Versus
Mela Singh and others .. Respondents
(16) CWP-10907-2020
Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd and another .. Petitioners
Versus
Avtar Singh and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. U.M. Khan, Advocate, for
Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner(s)
3 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 00:45:09 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005752
CWP-10290-2016 & connected cases 4
in CWP Nos. 10290, 10315, 4287, 10338, 13081 of 2016 and
CWP Nos.19730, 19768, 19732 of 2017 and 22552 of 2018 and
for respondents No. 1 and 2 in CWP No.14070, 14365 and
14369 of 2016.
Mr. Somesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners
in CWP-697-2019 and CWP-10907-2020.
Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate, for the petitioner(s)
in CWP-14365 and 14070 of 2016 and
for respondent No.1 in CWP-10290, 10315, 10338 and 13081
of 2016.
Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner
in CWP-24868-2018.
Mr. Mayank Mathur, Advocate, for the petitioner
in CWP-2826-2019.
Mr. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate, for respondent No.1
in CWP-697 and 2826 of 2019.
Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate and
Ms. Suman Rani, Advocate, for respondent No.1
in CWP-4287-2016.
Mr. Devyansh, Advocate, for
Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate, for the respondents.
Mr. Tarun Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2
in CWP-19732-2017.
Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate, for respondent No.1
in CWP-19730 and 19768 of 2017.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. By this common order, 16 writ petitions, the details of which
have been given in the heading, are being disposed of as all these petitions
involve the same question of law on similar facts.
2. In the present bunch of petitions, the question of law which has
been raised is whether any amount due to the employer keeping in view any
act committed by the employee concerned prior to his/her retirement, is
recoverable from the gratuity of the employee concerned or not.
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005752
3. The said question of law has already been settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2766-2767 of 2005
titled as Secretary O.N.G.C Limited and another vs. V.U Warrier, decided
on 20.04.2005 wherein, in paragraph 25 and 26, it has been held that the
employer is entitled to effect recovery from the retiral benefits including the
gratuity. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:
"25. It is well settled that gratuity is earned by an
employee for long and meritorious service rendered by him.
Gratuity is not paid to the employee gratuitously or merely as
a matter of boon. It is paid to him for the service rendered by
him to the employer [vide Garment Cleaning Works v. Its
Workmen, [1962] 1 SCR 711]. In Calcutta Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Their Workmen, [1967] 2 SCR 596, after considering
earlier decisions, this Court observed that "long and
meritorious service" must mean long and unbroken period of
service meritorious to the end. As the period of service must be
unbroken, so must the continuity of meritorious service be a
condition for entitling the workman to gratuity. If a workman
commits such misconduct as causes financial loss to his
employer, the employer would under the general law have a
right of action against the employee for the loss caused and
making a provision for withholding payment of gratuity where
such loss caused to the employer does not seem to aid to the
harmonious employment of labourers or workmen. The Court
proceeded to state that the misconduct may be such as to
undermine the discipline in the workers - a case in which it
would be extremely difficult to assess the financial loss to the
employer.
26. In Jarnail Singh v. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs
and Ors, [1993] 1 SCC 47, this Court had an occasion to
consider the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1972. The definition of "pension" included
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005752
gratuity under Rule 3. Rule 9 conferred on the President right
to withhold or withdraw pension in certain circumstances. The
order was passed against the appellant withholding pension
and the entire amount of death- cum- retirement gratuity
otherwise admissible to him. The direction was given on
serious irregularities found to have been committed by the
appellant. The appellant challenged that order unsuccessfully
before the Central Administrative Tribunal. He, therefore,
approached this Court. His contention was that an amount of
gratuity could not have been withheld. Negativing the
contention, the Court held that the power to withhold gratuity
was conferred on the President under the relevant rules and
hence, such action could not be said to be illegal. According to
the Court, there could be adjustment of Government dues
against the amount of death-cum- retirement gratuity payable
to Government servant."
4. The said question again came up for consideration before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.11025 of 2020 titled as M/s
Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Raghbendra Singh and others,
decided on 15.12.2020 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
again held that any recovery to be done from the employee keeping in view
any act during the course of service, can be adjusted against the due payable
to the employee concerned including gratuity. The relevant paragraphs of
the said judgment are as under:-
"We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner
and it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is qua the
broad observations made in paras 19 and 21 in respect of the
right to retain quarters since the dues were not paid. The fact
remains that the quarter was never vacated and this resulted in
proceedings under the Public Premise (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 which culminated against
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005752
the employee and had attained finality. But the entitlement of
the respondent under a Scheme of the petitioner cannot be
doubted. We are informed that the scheme no more exists. The
amount in question is also quite small and thus, we feel it is not
a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India.
We, however, set aside the observations made in paras
19 and 21 qua the principles of penal rent being charged as we
are of the view that if an employee occupies a quarter beyond
the specified period, the penal rent would be the natural
consequence and such penal rent can be adjusted against the
dues payable including gratuity. This is so in view of the
judgment in Secretary, ONGC Ltd. v. V.U. Warrier - (2005) 5
SCC 245 and the reliance placed in the impugned judgment on
the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Plant [Civil
Appeal No.4740/2007] dated 31.03.2017 is misplaced as is not
even a judgment but an order in the given facts of the case."
5. Not only this, the same question also came up for consideration
before this Court in CWP No.26564 of 2016 titled as Food Corporation of
India vs. Amarjit Singh Brar and others, decided on 14.12.2020 wherein,
by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in CWP No.16555 of 2006 titled as Devinder Singh vs. Food Corporation
of India and others, decided on 28.03.2008, a finding was recorded that the
Department is within its jurisdiction to make recovery from the gratuity in
case, any loss has been caused by the employee concerned to the
Department.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to rebut
the said proposition of law.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present,
case, the present writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that the
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005752
petitioner-Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Limited will be entitled to
recover the amount if any, admissible to the Corporation in case, any such
order of recovery of any amount has been passed against the employee
concerned or in case, any act of the employee has resulted in loss to the
Corporation, which has been proved by duly associating the employee
concerned.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-employees submits that the
Corporation has passed a Resolution on 15.09.2020 for releasing of the
gratuity amount and they have already released gratuity to the employees
concerned.
9. It may be noticed that this Court is not passing an order as to
whether, the employee concerned is entitled for the gratuity or not. The
order being as to whether any recovery of loss or otherwise imposed against
the employee during his/her service career, can be done from the retiral
benefits including the gratuity of the employee concerned. Keeping in view
the settled principle of law mentioned hereinabove, the recovery of the loss
caused can be done from the retiral benefits of respondent-employees
including gratuity. After the said deduction, the remaining amount, if any,
admissible to the respondent-employees is to be released to the employees
concerned.
10. The petitioner-Corporation is directed to consider the claim of
each of the employee concerned and in case, any order of recovery has been
passed against any employee qua any act or misconduct committed during
the service career, after adjusting the said amount, in case, the liability of
the petitioner-Corporation still remains to pay any amount qua pensionary
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005752
benefits including gratuity to the employee concerned, the same be released
to the said employee within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this order in case there is no other impediment to withhold the
said gratuity keeping in view the Rules governing the service.
11. The present writ petitions are disposed of in above terms.
12. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands
disposed of.
13. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected cases.
January 16, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
