Punjab-Haryana High Court
L.N.Gupta vs . Uco Bank And Others on 24 September, 2008
Author: K.S.Garewal
Bench: K.S.Garewal, Jitendra Chauhan
R.A.No. 276 of 2007 in CWP No. 16451 of 2004 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.A.No. 276 of 2007 in
CWP No. 16451 of 2004
Date of decision: 24.9.2008
L.N.Gupta Vs. Uco Bank and others
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Shri Puneet Kansal , Advocate,
for the petitioner
Mr. Aseem Rai, Advocate,
for the respondents.
K.S.GAREWAL,J.
This review application was filed by L.N.Gupta the writ petitioner in CWP 16451 of 2004 which was decided on September 7, 2007. The writ petitioner died on December 15, 2007 and is survived by his legal heirs Sandeep Gupta and five others who were impleaded as parties on March 14, 2008.
The late L.N.Gupta had been aggrieved by the denial of full pension, gratuity and leave encashment after he had been compulsorily retired from service on June 21, 1999. L.N.Gupta filed CWP 18057 of 2002 to challenge the denial of these benefits. This petition was decided on December 2, 2003 and the petitioner was allowed to raise all pleas before R.A.No. 276 of 2007 in CWP No. 16451 of 2004 2 the competent authorities. He got a personal hearing after which he was found entitled to only 2/3rd pension, no gratuity and no leave encashment.
This led the filing CWP 16451 of 2004 which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on September 7, 2007. Reliance had been placed on Ashwani Kumar Sharma Vs. UCO Bank and others 2006(4) Service Cases Today 171. Resulantly, it was held that reduction of pension and denial of gratuity was justified because the orders had been passed after giving the petitioner a full hearing. However, denial of leave encashment was found to be unjustified.
In the review application the learned counsel for the petitioners has again referred to the judgment in Ashwani Kumar Sharma's case (supra) to argue that the case of a compulsorily retired employee is different from the cases where employees are removed or dismissed from service. The benefit of full pension and gratuity cannot be denied to a compulsorily retired employee.
We have gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Ashwani Kumar Sharma's case and find that the petitioner in that case had also been compulsorily retired. He was held entitled to an opportunity of hearing before a cut in pension was imposed and gratuity withheld. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that a compulsorily retired employee can demand full pension and full gratuity. There has been no misreading of Ashwani Kumar Sharma's case.
In the present case it is quite clear from the written argument dated April 16, 2004 (Annexure P-4) and the order dated July 21, 2004 (Annexure P-5) that the petitioner was given a full hearing before his R.A.No. 276 of 2007 in CWP No. 16451 of 2004 3 pension was reduced and gratuity withheld. Although, he had been denied leave encashment but this part of the order Annexure P-5 was set aside on September 7, 2007.
Since the deceased petitioner had got a fair hearing and a full opportunity to present his case, we are unable to accept the contention of the counsel that judgment dated September 7, 2007 requires to be reviewed. There is no error apparent on the face of the record which calls for review. The review application is dismissed.
(K.S.GAREWAL) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE September 24, 2008 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not: No