Government Servant’s Entitlement To Full Pension & Gratuity Is Subject To Outcome Of Disciplinary Or Judicial Proceedings: Allahabad HC Upholds Withholding Of Gratuity
The Allahabad High Court upheld the withholding of a government employee's gratuity, reiterating that entitlement to full pension or gratuity is subject to the outcome of pending disciplinary or judicial proceedings.
The Court dismissed an intra-Court Appeal filed by a retired government employee (Appellant) challenging the withholding of his gratuity during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. The Bench stated that under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations (Regulations), gratuity can be withheld by the Governor until the conclusion of disciplinary or judicial proceedings.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava pointed out that “As per terms of Article 351-A, the Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement.”
Advocate Yashpal Yadav represented the Appellant, while Standing Counsel Ratandeep Mishra appeared for the Respondents.
The Appellant, who had retired as Deputy Director (Agricultural Development), submitted that a part of his gratuity amount was withheld out of the total gratuity payable. The disciplinary proceedings, initiated on the basis of a charge-sheet pertained to allegations of misconduct during his service.
The Appellant challenged the same arguing that the proceedings were initiated after his retirement without prior sanction from the Governor under Article 351-A of the Regulations.
The Writ Petition filed by the Regulations was disposed of by the Single Bench with the observation that he was entitled to provisional pension but not to gratuity during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the Appellant approached the Division Bench in the present appeal.
The Division Bench stated that the State Government under Article 351 of the Regulations was conferred with the power of withholding or withdrawing pension or any part of it, if the pensioner was convicted of a ‘serious crime’ or was found guilty of ‘grave misconduct’.
“The proviso to Article 351-A relates to initiation of disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings against a government servant after retirement,” the Court stated.
The Division Bench referred to the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Shivagopal v. State of UP (2019), wherein the question as to whether a government servant/pensioner was entitled to full pension/death cum-retirement gratuity before the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings.
The Full Bench observed, “On combined reading of Article 351, 351-A, 351-AA and 919-A, the impact on pension/gratuity would arise after the competent authority has had the occasion to consider and issue final orders upon conclusion of the proceedings. The cause to the government servant arises thereafter and not at the stage pending proceedings/enquiry.”
Consequently, the Court held, “Having regard to the foregoing discussions and taking note of the fact that the legal position with regard to the entitlement to a government servant/pensioner to full pension/death-cum-retirement gratuity before conclusion of disciplinary proceedings/judicial proceedings and final order being passed thereon, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge insofar as it declines to grant of relief in regard to payment of balance amount of gratuity during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and observing that the petitioner is entitled to his provisional pension, which he is receiving, does not call for any interference.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Buddha Prakash Sachan v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:188201-DB)