Rajaram Soni vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sanjay Yadav, J.—With consent matter is heard finally. The pleadings though voluminous, the arguments even lengthier, controversy, however, lies within a narrow compass and the facts even shorter.

Having retired as Accountant, from the office of Controller, Printing and Stationary on 31.5.2002, the petitioner''s Death cum Retirement Gratuity was not settled. Reasons being two fold, firstly, that, there was some error in respect of computation wherein the personal pay was not added while calculating the dearness allowance prevalent at the relevant time to arrive at a gross income for computation of D.C.R.G. and secondly, an assumption having been drawn the petitioner has been proceeded against from some misconduct.

In respect of the computation of D.C.R.G., it is observed from the material on record that the same was rectified in the year 2003. Whereas in respect of non-disbursement of D.C.R.G. for alleged misconduct, the record reveals that, 75% of the gratuity amount was released on 7.11.2002 but 25% was retained.

The petitioner, however, did not accept the 75 % may be for the reasons that, in absence of any disciplinary proceedings or a criminal case, the amount cannot be withheld and rightly so, because ultimately, as apparent from the orders dated 25.8.2007 and 10.9.2007 (Annexure P/46 and P/47) no enquiry has been found to be pending against the petitioner. On the contrary, conscious decision has been taken for not to initiate any departmental enquiry.

However, it took almost five years for the department to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for grant of 100% D.C.R.G.

The matter could have rested there by directing the respondent to make payment with interest. The petitioner, however, has raised the grievance that for no fault of his or rather for the fault of some other employee the petitioner has been castigated as defaulting employee. It is urged that having rendered an impeccable blot-less service it has pained him that on the retirement he has been treated as ''defaulting employee'' which has lowered down his status.

The respondents does not dispute having committing an error in addressing the petitioner as ''defaulting employee''. It is stated in paragraph 6 of the return that "it is an ''error of expression'' only without intending to cast any stigma or to hold him guilty of causing loss. Needless to state that before holding regular departmental enquiry, no employee can be said to be guilty of any wrong, misconduct or loss. Therefore, there is no question of treating the petitioner as guilty of the loss sustained by the department. Therefore, the expression as reflected in Annexure P/46 and Annexure P/47 which may offend the petitioner are liable to be treated to have been omitted".

The injury having been caused by tarnishing the image of an honest employee does not get cured merely by expressing the regret. The person who is wronged deserves to be compensated.

In view whereof while expunging the remarks ''defaulting employee'' as it appear in Annexure P/46 and P/47 and by directing the respondent to settle entire gratuity in favour of petitioner, if not settled till now, within three months from the date of communication of this order and the interest thereon at the rate of 9.5% from the date of entitlement till actual payment. The respondents should also compensate the petitioner, for tarnishing his status, which is quantified to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousands). The State would, however, at a liberty to recover the amount from the officer found responsible for castigating the petitioner as a ''defaulting employee''. In the result petition is allowed to the extent above.