Allahabad High Court
Bihari Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., ... on 28 August, 2025
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:50803 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9389 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Punit Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent n o.1 and Ms. Shruti Dixit, learned counsel, who files Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents no.2 to 4.
2. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties the matter is being decided finally.
3. Under challenge is the order dated 19.04.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, so far as it pertains to withholding of gratuity of the petitioner.
4. The reason as emerges from perusal of the said order is that on account of an accident having occurred with the departmental vehicle no objection certificate has not been issued to the petitioner and consequently it has not been found possible for the respondents to pay gratuity to the petitioner.
5. The petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2024 from the post of Driver.
6. Whether the respondents can withhold the gratuity of the petitioner after his retirement by means of the order impugned is no longer res-integra keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case ofAlok Chandra Chaubey vs. State of U.P. and others -2023:AHC-LKO:33003wherein this Court after considering the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 which admittedly are applicable on the Jal Nigam also has held as under:-
"9. For considering the first point of determination, it is essential to notice the Retirement Benefit Rules, specifically Rule 9(1) and 9(4), which are quoted herein under :
"9. (1) Government will have the right to effect recoveries from a gratuity or family pension sanctioned under Parts-II and III in the same circumstances as recoveries can be effected from an ordinary pension under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations.
(2) .......
(3) ......
(4) Death-cum-retirement gratuity admissible in addition to pension calculated at the rate given in the annexure shall be treated as gift and recoveries of any Government dues may be effected from the same."
10. A perusal of Rule 9(1) and 9 (4), makes it clear that the death-cum-retirement gratuity admissible to an employee is to be treated as gift and the recoveries of any government dues can be effected from the same. The said provision is being harped upon by Sri Rishabh Kapoor to argue that in terms of the said power, the recoveries can be effected from the same.
11. To appreciate the said argument, it is essential to notice that the Rule 9(4) only empowers the 'recoveries of government dues'. The said phrase has to be interpreted to mean 'recoveries of government in accordance with law'. The mode of recovery is not prescribed and infact is restricted under Rule 9(1) which authorizes the government to effect recoveries from the gratuity in the circumstances that can be effected from an ordinary pension under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulation. Rule 9(1) and 9(4) read in consonance lead to inescapable conclusion that the right of recoveries and the right of adjustment granted to the government under Rule 9(4) is subject to the right of recovery in favour of the government as prescribed under Rule 9(1) of the Retirement Benefit Rules.
12. In view of the mandate of Rule 9(1) of the Retirement Benefit Rules, I have no hesitation in holding that the Government can initiate proceedings for recovery from gratuity only in the circumstances as provided in Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, which prohibit the recovery unless the departmental proceedings is instituted that too subject to the limitations prescribed in Regulation 351-A (a)(i)(ii) and (iii) of the Regulations."
7. From perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case ofAlok Chandra Chaubey (supra)it clearly emerges that the respondents can only initiate proceedings for recovery from the gratuity only in the circumstances as provided in Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations which prohibits recovery unless departmental proceedings are instituted and that too subject to limitations specified inRegulation 351-A (a)(i)(ii) and (iii) of the Regulations.
8. In the instant case admittedly no proceedings under the Rules, 1961 or Article 351-A of the CSR have been instituted against the petitioner to have enabled the respondents to withhold the gratuity.
9. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 19.04.2025 so far as it pertains to withholding of gratuity of the petitioner is quashed. Consequences to follow.
10. However, it would be open for the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
11. The withheld amount of gratuity be released to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
12. While releasing the aforesaid amount the respondents shall also consider the payment of interest as admissible rate on the delayed payment of gratuity.
August 28, 2025 A. Katiyar