Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Co-Operative Society Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:4317 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5384 of 2022 • Vinay Verma S/o Late C.L. Verma Aged About 62 Years Occupation - Retired Coperative Inspector, R/o H.N. D/5 Kanchanganga Phase Ii, Gol Chowk, Rohinipuram, D.D. Nagar, Raipur, P.O. Rohinipuram, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Co-Operative Society Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Registrar C.G. Co-Operative Society Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Additional Registrar C.G. Co-Operative Society Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Joint Registrar C.G. Co-Operative Society Raipur Division, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
5. Deputy Registrar C.G. Co-Operative Society First Floor Vivekanand Complex, Vivekanand Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6. Joint Director Tresary, Account And Pension, Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 23/01/2025 Order on Board 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 08/04/2022 (P/1) issued by the respondent no. 4. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release and disburse the Gratuity of the petitioner for which he was entitled on the date of his retirement as early as possible in the larger interest of justice. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of gratuity withheld till it's actual release and disbursement in the account of the petitioner I.e. interest from 30/4/2022 till actual release and disbursement. 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to grant any other relief 3 which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favor of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the ends of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was working as Co- operative Inspector in the office of Assistant Registrar Co- operative Societies, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The petitioner retired from service of Co-operative Inspector on 30.4.2022 by virtue of order dated 25.4.2022. When the petitioner was on the verge of his retirement a show cause notice for initiation of departmental inquiry was issued against the petitioner to which the petitioner replied satisfactorily. However, ignoring the reply filed by the petitioner, the department has issued a chart-sheet against the petitioner for proceeding against him for two charges. Charge No. 1 relates to misconduct committed by the petitioner while he was appointed as Returning Officer to conduct an election of Avinash Ashiana residential Sarkari Samiti, Maryadit, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and Charge No. 2 relates to misconduct committed by the petitioner while he was posted as liquidator of one Madhuvan Grih Nirman Sarkari Samiti, Maryadit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in which the allegation is that he did not actively participate in the demarcation proceeding which was pending before the Collector, Raipur and as such has acted against the interest of the society. None of the above 2 charges relate to any 4 pecuniary loss to the State Government nor there is any allegation of wrongful gain to the petitioner. The above 2 charges are purely in the form of carelessness on the part of the petitioner in performing his official duty. The departmental enquiry is still to be conducted and the charges are still to be proved in evidence. The impugned order passed by the respondent No. 4 by virtue of which the retiral benefits of the petitioner, in particular the gratuity is withheld is apparently bad in law and against the Article 300 A of the Constitution of India and also against the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that the gratuity to be the property of the employee under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that in case of delay in payment of the gratuity, the employee is entitled for the interest from his employer for the delay caused in payment of gratuity. Hence, the petitioner is praying for release of his gratuity which has been withheld by the department for the reason of pendency of the departmental enquiry. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of gratuity is not being given to the petitioner only on the ground that the departmental enquiry is going on, however, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that enquiry has been concluded and as such the respondents are liable to pay the 5 amount of gratuity which has not been granted to the petitioner. He has placed an order by which the departmental enquiry has been concluded, when, the aforesaid document has been supplied to the State counsel and he has confirmed that the departmental enquiry has been concluded and has accepted that there is no other reason to deny the gratuity to the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents and have perused the records with circumspection. The law governing the field of grant of gratuity clearly goes to show that the amount of gratuity is not a bounty but the same is a rightful earned benefit of the employee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that gratuity is not a bounty that can be withheld at the sweet will or whims of the employer. Gratuity is a right accrued by employees for their service and cannot be withheld arbitrarily. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Kerala and others vs M. Padmanabhan Nair reported in 1985 1 SCC 429 squarely covers the fact that the present case, the petitioner has been denied the statutory right to get amount of gratuity and the interest payable on gratuity as incorporated and mandated by sub-section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on wholly untenable ground. 6. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and further 6 considering the fact that the amount of gratuity cannot be withheld without any reasonable reason as such the respondents authorities are directed to release the amount of gratuity to the petitioner within a period of 60 days. The interest applicable under the law will follow. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat