Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Anamala Sivaiah vs Central Silk Board on 20 March, 2024
1 OA 483/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00483/2022
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ...MEMBER(A)
Shri Anamala Sivaiah,
Aged about 61 years,
S/o Late A.Venkatswamy,
Working as Senior Technical Assistant, (Retd),
Office of the RSRS Central Silk Board,
Residing at No.11-1-23,
1st Cross, Aravindnagar,
Ananthapuram,
ANDHRA PRADESH-510051.
C/o Venkatesh H.,
No.37, Mathruchaya Nilaya,
Gerupalya, Kumbalagodu Post,
Kengeri Hobali,
BANGALORE-560060. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Shri S.Rajesh)
Vs.
2 OA 483/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
1. The Central Silk Board,
[Ministry of Textiles],
Government of India,
C.S.B.Complex,
B.T.M.Layout,
Madiwala,
Bangalore-560068.
Represented by its
Member Secretary.
2. The Deputy Director [A&A],
Central Silk Board,
C.S.B. Complex,
B.T.M.Layout,
Madiwala,
Bangalore -560068.
3. The Director,
Central Sericultural Research &
Training Institution,
Central Silk Board,
Srirampura,
Mysore-570008. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri Vishnu Bhat for Respondents)
3 OA 483/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
ORDER
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
The applicant has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"A] Set aside the communication letter bearing No.CSB-6(3657)/2022/PEN dated 18.08.2022 issued by the 2nd Respondent in so far as it relates to withholding of gratuity payable to the Applicant vide ANNEXURE-A8, under the facts and circumstances of the case:
B] DIRECT the Respondents to release the retirement gratuity of Rs.15,00,000/- to the Applicant together with 10% interest from the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment to the Applicant, under the facts and circumstances of the case; and C] Any other order, direction or relief which is just and proper and in favour of the applicant, may also be passed."
4 OA 483/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant who was working as Senior Technical Assistant in the Respondent Board retired from service on 31.05.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation. At the behest of one Shri P.V.Venkataramana Murthy, resident of Tenali, the Respondent Board has withheld the applicant's retirement gratuity of Rs.15,00,000/- until the conclusion of judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. Respondent No.2 under the impugned communication dated 18.08.2022 has sanctioned the pension and commutation value of pension withholding the retirement gratuity of Rs.15,00,000/- on the ground that until conclusion of judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon, the retirement gratuity of Rs.15,00,000/- has kept in abeyance. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. Learned Counsel Shri S.Rajesh representing the applicant submitted that the pendency of O.S. No.20/2022 filed by one Shri P.V.Venkataramana Murthy against the applicant before the Ist Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, Andhra Pradesh, would not 5 OA 483/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH constitute a ground for the respondents to withhold the gratuity of the applicant under Rule 69(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Learned Counsel further submitted that Section 60 of CPC makes it clear that no attachment or order would be issued to attach the gratuity amount payable to an employee. Gratuity amount is exempt from attachment from any decree or order of any Civil Court or Criminal Court. In the absence of passing of any order of attachment by the Hon'ble Court, merely at the request of the plaintiff in O.S.NO.20/2022 withholding the legally entitled gratuity amount of the applicant by the respondents is illegal and the same deserves to be set aside.
4. Learned Counsel Shri Vishnu Bhat representing the respondents submitted that in OS No.20/2022 filed by Shri Puligadda Venkata Ramana Murthy before the Hon'ble First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, Joint Director, Central Silk Board has been impleaded as Defendant No.2. This case for recovery of loan amount of Rs.15,00,000/- against the applicant is sub-judice. Subsequent to retirement of the applicant on 6 OA 483/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 31.05.2022 all his terminal benefits have already been released by the Board, only withholding an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, in view of the pending court case. Placing reliance on Rule 69(1)(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, learned Counsel justified the action of the Board in withholding the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- until the final decision of the pending matter.
5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
6. Rule 69(1)(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 reads thus:
"No gratuity shall be paid to the Government Servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue final orders thereon."
7. In our considered view this Rule is not applicable to the facts of the present case since it is the private civil dispute pending in O.S.No.20/2022 before the First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, Andhra Pradesh for recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- alleged loan amount with interest claimed by the plaintiff therein, against the applicant. As could be seen from the material placed on record, the 7 OA 483/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH plaintiff in OS No.20/2022 moved an IA seeking for a direction to the defendants to furnish security for the suit amount of Rs.19,46,500/- including interest plus cost of suit and if he fails to furnish the security, sought for conditional attachment on the amount of retirement benefits, vide application dated 07.01.2022 (Annexure A9 and A10). But no orders are passed on the said application. It is thus clear that merely on filing of the suit for recovery by third party against the applicant, Respondent Board has withheld the gratuity amount equivalent to the loan amount, which is not due to the employer. It is not the case of adjustment of loan amount arising out of a loan agreement or any loss caused to the employer or pursuant to any criminal or disciplinary proceedings pending/concluded against the applicant. This action of the respondent is against the object of payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the provisions of Section 60 CPC. It is settled law that the gratuity and pension are not bounties and it is in the nature of property. This right to property cannot be taken away without due process of law as per Article 300A of the Constitution of India (vide judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of 8 OA 483/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Jharkhand & others vs. Jithendra Kumar Srivastava & others reported in 2013 (2) SCC 210. It is beneficial to quote the case of Jyotirmay Ray vs. The Field General Manager, Punjab National Bank and others (2023 INSC 979), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
"....... if we see the provisions of the Gratuity Act, gratuity can be withheld in case of damages or loss so caused or destruction of property belonging to the employer or otherwise where the termination of service is due to riotous or disorderly conduct or due to criminal case involving moral turpitude."
In the present case, no such damages or loss or destruction of property has been caused to the employer or the applicant was terminated from service for disorderly conduct or criminal case involving moral turpitude. The applicant retired on attaining superannuation. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure A8) is not sustainable and cannot be approved. Accordingly, deserves to be set aside.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, we pass the following:
9 OA 483/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH ORDER
1) The communication letter dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure A8) issued by Respondent No.2 in so far as it relates to the repayment of the gratuity amount to the applicant is set aside.
2) The respondents are directed to pay the withheld gratuity amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only) to the applicant with the prevailing GPF rate of interest from the date of his retirement till the date of payment.
3) Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner, in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
4) OA stands allowed in terms of above.
No order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.