AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.L. Soni, J.—The petitioner, by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged order dated 3.5.1994 passed by respondent No. 1 ordering not to release the amount of gratuity to the petitioner as the petitioner has not handed over complete charge of the books of library. The petitioner has further prayed to direct the respondents to pay the amount of gratuity of Rs. 69,300.00 with compound interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 28.3.1994 and also to direct the respondents to finalize pension and retiral benefits as regular pension instead of provisional pension in accordance with law. The petition is opposed by the respondents by filing affidavit in reply.
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Advocate Mr. Munshi appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner has been paid the pension and other retiral dues pending the petition and, therefore, the only grievance which survives in the petition is as regards claim of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity amount.
Learned Advocate Mr. B.P. Munshi has drawn attention of the Court to earlier order passed in this petition dated 6.2.2013 especially paras 4, 5 and 6 thereof, which are quoted below:
Under these circumstances, without going into the question as to whether Dean was competent to order withholding of gratuity and also as to whether the said objection was bona fide or otherwise, at least on the face of report dated 5.1.1995, the retirement dues as ordered in Pension Payment Order dated 18.3.1994 should have been paid to the petitioner, soon thereafter.
It is indicated that the petitioner was paid provisional pension and gratuity also came to be paid in the year 2006. Learned AGP is not in a position to indicate as to on the face of report of the Committee dated 5.1.1995 with regard to the shortage of the books if any, why Pension Payment Order dated 18.3.1994 was not permitted to be given effect to by the Dean, Medical College, Jamnagar.
It is also indicated that the employee petitioner died on 13.9.2012 and his legal heirs are '' on record.
Learned Advocate Shri Munshi submitted that not only no justification has been provided by the respondents for withholding the amount of gratuity but after the report of the Committee dated 5.1.1995 with regard to the shortfall of the books, action of the respondents of not releasing the amount of gratuity to the petitioner could not stand scrutiny of law. Mr. Munshi submitted that for no fault on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner was deprived of the amount of gratuity for long period though the said amount was due and payable to the petitioner in the month of March, 1994. He submitted that in no circumstances, the amount of gratuity could have been withheld especially when nothing could be found adverse against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is justified in claiming; interest on the delayed payment of the amount of gratuity for the period from the date of his retirement till the date when he was actually paid such amount in the year 2006.
As against the above arguments, learned AGP Mr. Niraj Ashar submitted that it was not that without any reason, the petitioner was denied his amount of gratuity. He submitted that the petitioner since was working as librarian, it was his duty to give complete charge of the books at the time of his retirement. However, having not done so, in order to ensure that no financial loss was caused to the institution, the respondent authority decided not to release the gratuity till it was found that the petitioner was in no way responsible or liable for not giving complete charge of the books of library. Learned AGP Mr. Ashar, thus, submitted that it cannot be said that the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner was withheld without any reason. He therefore urged to dismiss the petition.
Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the papers, ft appears that there is no dispute about the fact that after the retiral benefits of the petitioner were withheld, the same could be finally paid to him only in the year 2006. The petitioner had retired on 18.3.1994 and during the pendency of the petition, he expired on 13.9.2012.
The only reason on which the gratuity was withheld is the order passed by respondent No. 1 for not releasing the amount of gratuity till the full charge of the books of library was handed over by the petitioner. But thereafter, there is no order forfeiting the amount of gratuity of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner had to approach the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 "the Act" for short] by filing Gratuity Application No. 2 of 1998 and the Controlling Authority passed order dated 14.11.1998 at Annexure P for payment of gratuity of Rs. 69,300.00 to the petitioner within thirty days from the date of the order. Even thereafter also, the petitioner was not paid the amount of gratuity. Thus, it appears that only on the ground that the petitioner had not given full charge of the books of library, his gratuity was not released. In its order under the provisions of the Act, the Controlling Authority has clearly observed that except as provided under the provisions of the Act, for no other reason, the amount of gratuity could be forfeited. The Controlling Authority has clearly held that the stoppage of payment of gratuity in connection with the library books was contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Controlling Authority has observed that the Director of Pension and Provident Fund, Ahmedabad- has sanctioned the amount of gratuity of Rs. " 57,750.00 vide letter dated 18.3.1994 and further amount of Rs. 11,550.00 vide his letter dated 7.9.1995 and, thus, total amount of Rs. 69,300.00 was sanctioned and, therefore, withholding of such sanctioned amount was not in the interest of justice.
In view of the above finding recorded by the Con-trolling Authority under the Act, it clearly appears that though the petitioner was entitled to get his'' amount of gratuity right from 18.3.1994, the respondents did not release such amount to the petitioner without any justifiable cause. The petitioner has thus become entitled to interest on such delayed payment of the amount of gratuity. Petitioner has claimed interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the delayed payment of the amount of gratuity.'' However, considering the facts of the case and'' keeping in mind the prevailing bank rate of interest, the petitioner could be awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date the gratuity amount was sanctioned till the date of actual payment of such amount to the petitioner in the year 2006. In-view of the above, the petition is partly allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the delayed payment of the amount of gratuity of Rs. 57750.00 from 18.3.1994 and on Rs. 11550.00 from 7.9.1995 till the date on which the petitioner was actually paid such amount in the year, 2006. Respondents are directed to work out and pay such amount of interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above.