Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/589/2022 on 17 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE
WRIT PETITON (S/B) NO. 589 OF 2022
17TH OCTOBER, 2022
BETWEEN:
State of Uttarakhand & others .....Petitioners.
And
Sandeep Kumar Chauhan ....Respondent.
Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. Anil K. Bisht, learned
Additional Chief Standing
Counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The State has preferred the present writ petition to
assail the judgment dated 02.03.2022, rendered by the
Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, at Dehradun, in Claim
Petition No.31/DB/2022, preferred by the respondent- Mr.
Sandeep Kumar Chauhan.
2. The limited relief granted to the claimant in the said
claim petition was to issue a direction to the State to release
the gratuity amount in favour of the respondent herein, along
with simple interest payable on General Provident Fund after
three months of the acceptance of his resignation till the date
of actual payment.
3. The respondent was serving in the Uttarakhand
Police. He tendered his resignation on 05.11.2019. Even
before that, he had applied for V.R.S. His V.R.S. was not
accepted on the ground that he has not completed 20 years
of service, and has not attained the age of 45 years. So far as
his claim for acceptance of V.R.S., the Tribunal did not find
any merit in the same.
4. The respondent had also claimed gratuity and
interest on delayed payment of gratuity. The Tribunal takes
note of the fact that the S.P. Chamoli had issued an order
dated 27.01.2020 directing the Pension Clerk of S.P. Office to
release gratuity, insurance, leave encashment. In pursuance
of the said order, all amounts, except gratuity, were released
to the respondent. In Paragraph Nos.5 to 8, the Tribunal held
as follows:-
"5. The resignation of the petitioner has been accepted
by S.P. Chamoli (Respondent No.3) vide order dated
02.02.2020. It has been mentioned in order dated
02.07.2020 (Annexure: A 5) that it was not possible to accept
V.R.S. of the petitioner, inasmuch as he has not completed 45
years of age or has not put in 20 years of service. A reference
of Rule 56 (C), Financial Hand Book, Vol. II, Part 2 to 4 has
been given in such order. It has been admitted by
Respondent No.3 in order dated 27.01.2020 (Annexure: A 4)
that the petitioner was entitled to gratuity and, therefore, a
direction was given to the Pension Clerk to release gratuity in
favour of the petitioner.
6. It is, therefore, held that the petitioner is
entitled to gratuity consequent upon acceptance of
petitioner's resignation.
7. This Tribunal, relying upon the Govt. Order
dated 10.08.2004 and hosts of other decisions, is of the
view that petitioner should be paid interest on delayed
payment of gratuity, admissible to him, after three
months of acceptance of his resignation till the date of
actual payment.
8. The respondents are, therefore, directed to
release gratuity in favour of the petitioner along with
interest, which shall be simple rate of interest payable
on General Provident Fund, after three months of the
acceptance of his resignation till the date of actual
payment."
5. The submission of the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-petitioners is that gratuity was
not payable to the respondent under Regulation 418(a) of the
Civil Service Regulations, as the respondent has tendered his
resignation. Regulation 418(a) reads as follows:-
"418. (a) Resignation of the public service, or dismissal or
removal from it for misconduct, insolvency in-efficiency not
due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination entails
forfeiture of past service."
6. The submission is that since the respondent had
tendered his resignation, it amounted to forfeiture of past
service, and consequently, no gratuity was payable to the
respondent.
7. We find no merit in this submission. Firstly, the
order passed by the S.P. Chamoli on 27.01.2020, when relied
upon by the respondent before the Tribunal, was not
disowned by the petitioners, and it was not claimed that the
same was contrary to the Rules and Regulations applicable to
the respondent. Secondly, reading of Regulation 418(a)
shows that it is only resignations which stem from
misconduct, insolvency inefficiency, or failure to pass a
prescribed examination, which would lead to forfeiture of past
service. Resignation, as contemplated by Regulation 418(a),
is penal in nature. In the present case, it is not the case of
the petitioners that the resignation of the respondent was
penal. It is resignation simplicitor.
8. That being the position, in our view, Regulation
418(a) is not attracted to the facts of the present case.
9. We do not find any merit in this writ petition, and
the same is, hereby, dismissed.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(R.C. KHULBE, J.)
Dated: 17th October, 2022
NISHANT
