The High Court · 2025

Petition under section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the Provident Fund pending for the period between 15.01.2018 to 31 .0'1 .2019 along with interest at the rate of 8.5 % p.a. compounded annually, pending disposal of writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. JAGRITI SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI G.V.S.GANESH Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF INDIA The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT w THE, IION'BLE THE, CHII,F JU STICE APAII.ESH KUMAR SINGH ANT) TI{E HON'BI-E SRI JTJS'I'I CE P.SAM KOSHY WRIT APPEAt, No.1353 of 2024 JUDGN{ENT: /ptr ttp Ha bL'stt .rultrce p sat Ko\b,) [ leard Ms. Jagriti Sanghi. learnecl counsel lor the appetlant, Mr. G.V.S. Ganesh. [earncd counsel for respondent Nos. I to 3, and Mr. B. Mukher.lee, learncd counscl leprcsenting Mr. Gadi Pravcen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor Gencral ol lndia Ibr rcsponder-rt No.4_

2. 'l-he present writ appeal has been tiled by the appellant under Clause l5 of the Letters Patent Acl-, challenging the older dated 14.06.2024 passed by the lcanrcd Singlc Judge of this Courr in \/r.it Petition No.32156 of 2024.

3. l'he appcllant had prefen'ed thc albrcsaid rvrit petition seeking for an appropliate di|ection against thc lespondcnts for releasing the provident fund, paymcnt of gratuitl', leavc encashment., seLllcment allowances and other benefits which the appellant u,as other.wise entitled lor on attaining thc age of superannuation.

4. 'fhe facts of the case, are that, the appeUant .etired f'rorn service w.e.f. 3 1 .01 .20 I 9 lrorn the post of Dcptrty Ceneral Manager (l'R & E) from tl.re !-\i*"esr",,s Pagc 2 ol6 respondents establishment. However, before the appellant could retire fi'om service, the respondents had decided to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against him and accordingly a charge sheet was issued against hin.r on 02.01.20 19. lt is said that though the charge sheet was issued on 02.01.2019, thereafter the disciplinary proceeding has not progressed any further and it has becn more than 3 years that the appellant was dcnied of his post retiral dues which led to filing ol the writ petition in the year 2022.

5. Pending the rvrit petition, it is lcarnt that thc rcspondents havc rneanwhilc releascd thc provident lund amount. I lowever, as lar as paylnent of gratuity rs concerned, the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act had passed an order on 04.01.2022. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directcd the respondents to deposit the payment of gratuity amount as awarded by thc competent authority. Meanwhile, the learned Single Judge also directed lor release of the provident fund amount for the period between 15.01 .201 8 to

31.01.2019 which felt due to be paid to the appellant. The leamed Single Judge found that since there is no rule provision entitling the appellant for the bcnefits like leave encashment and settlement allowances during the pendency of the department proceedings as also the criminal proceedings, therefore the order for releasing of the same was declined, leading to filing of the present appeal 1

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the rules goveming the leave encashment and payment of retiral dues does not envisage withholding of leave encashment or releasing of the settlement allowances. The appellant for the said benefits contended that l-re I'ras already retired morc than 6 years back and those retiral benet-rts are the only source with which he has to sustain himself and the persons depending upon him. Hence, this is all the more a reason for an appropriate order from this Court.

7. On the contrary, the learned counsel lor the respondent Nos. I to 3 contended that the charges against lhe appellant are very grave as wor-rld be evident from t['re contents of the chargc sl'reet. ln addition, against the appellant there is also a criminal case which is instituted and pending in Criminal Couft at Panchakula, I{aryana. 'l'hat on account of the pendency of the criminal case as also the pendencv of the disciplinary proceeding, the relief sought for by the appellant so far as releasing of the leave encashment and payment of settlcment allowances cannot be accepted.

8. Leamed counsel for the respondent Nos. I to 3 further contended that under the rulcs, the authority concemed is entitled to make recovery at least to the extent of monetary loss, if any, caused to the department. Further, reI-crring to the penalty clause under the service rcgulations, the leamed counsel for the Pagc 4 ol6 respondcnt Nos.1 to 3 highlighted the fact that in exceptional cases and for special reasons other penalties can also be imposed. g. Having heard the contentions put lorlh on eithcr side and on perusal of records, the t'acts narTated in thc preccding paragraphs so lar as the appellanr having superannuated w.e.f. 31.0 1.2019 from the post of Deputy General Manager (TR & E) is not in dispute. So f-ar as the appcllant being subjccted to disciptinary proceeding and a charge sheet beir.rg issucd to him on 02.01 .20 l9 is also not in dispute. Likewisc, therc is also an admission that the criuinal case has been lodged against the appellant in Panchakula, Haryana, which again is pending. Meanwhile, the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act had already passed an order in favour of the appellant for release of the gratuity. Further, the employer had already passed an ordcr lor releasing ol thc gratuity up titl 15.08.2018.

10. Now the main grievancc of the appellant is only so far as thc non- releasing of the leave encashment amount and settlement allowances payable to him on his retirement.

11. The leave and leave encashment rules applicable in the responder-tts has clause 7 .2.3 deating with deduction. clause (b) of the said clause reads as under: 1 j -_-r Page 5 of6 " (b) In cases of separations of all types, Company's dues shall be recovered from the amount of encashment " L2. Though the rules goveming the service conditions of the appellant does not provide for withholding of leave encashment and settlement allowances, it is difficult to accept the prayer made by the appettant in the teeth of the disciplinary proceeding for a major misconduct and a criminal case being pending.

13. In the fachral matrix narrated in the preceding paragraphs, considering the two aspects; firstly the appellant being retired from service for about 6 years back w.e.f. 31.01.2019 and, secondly, there does not seem to be any substantial progress in the disciplinary proceedings during this 6 years period, we dispose of the present writ appeal with a direction to the respondents to ensure that at least the disciplinary proceedings that have been initiated against the appellant are concluded on priority basis within an outer limit of 4 months. At the same time, we also order that in the event if the respondents are not in a position to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within the above mentioned 4 months' time, we hold that the appellant shall be entitled for release of his other retiral dues as well, like leave encashment and settlement allowances. This direction is given for the reason that the disciplinary proceedings initiated once while the employee was in service cannot be permitted to remain pending without any !r-I\ - ',+sB" : progress whatsoever for an indefinite period thereby declining and depriving of an employee his rightful claim for post retiral benehts for no fault of his'

14. With these observations, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No costs.

15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed' ,TRUE COPY// SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR seckbrrrcen To,

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, HMT Machine Tools Ltd, Head Office, HlrlT Bhavan, 59, Bellary Road, Bangalore 560032

2. The General Manager and Unit Chief, HMT f\r]achine Tools Ltd, Narsapur Road, Hyderabad, 5000054

3. The Administrative Officer, Htt/T PF Trust, H It/T tvlachine Tools Limited, Narsapur Road, Hyderabad, 5000054

4. The Secretary, Ministry of Heavy lndustries, Department of Heavy lndustries, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi, Union of lndia- 110001 5. One CC to Ms. JAGRITI SANGHI, Advocate IOPUCI 6. One CC to SRI G.V.S.GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIVAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF lNDIA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOPUC] B BSR PVL Two CD Copies W I I HIGH COURT DATED: 2810712025 I JUDGMENT WA.No.1353 of 2024 :i Ir\ f 6 + .:) t (' i; I + 1r [uE zffi ,t o T}AT C H EO DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS b