State Of Uttarakhand & Others vs Sandeep Kumar Chauhan

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

The State has preferred the present writ petition to assail the judgment dated 02.03.2022, rendered by the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, at Dehradun, in Claim Petition No.31/DB/2022, preferred by the respondent- Mr. Sandeep Kumar Chauhan.

The limited relief granted to the claimant in the said claim petition was to issue a direction to the State to release the gratuity amount in favour of the respondent herein, along with simple interest payable on General Provident Fund after three months of the acceptance of his resignation till the date of actual payment.

The respondent was serving in the Uttarakhand Police. He tendered his resignation on 05.11.2019. Even before that, he had applied for V.R.S. His V.R.S. was not accepted on the ground that he has not completed 20 years of service, and has not attained the age of 45 years. So far as his claim for acceptance of V.R.S., the Tribunal did not find any merit in the same.

The respondent had also claimed gratuity and interest on delayed payment of gratuity. The Tribunal takes note of the fact that the S.P. Chamoli had issued an order dated 27.01.2020 directing the Pension Clerk of S.P. Office to release gratuity, insurance, leave encashment. In pursuance of the said order, all amounts, except gratuity, were released to the respondent. In Paragraph Nos.5 to 8, the Tribunal held as follows:-

“5. The resignation of the petitioner has been accepted by S.P. Chamoli (Respondent No.3) vide order dated 02.02.2020. It has been mentioned in order dated 02.07.2020 (Annexure: A 5) that it was not possible to accept V.R.S. of the petitioner, inasmuch as he has not completed 45 years of age or has not put in 20 years of service. A reference of Rule 56 (C), Financial Hand Book, Vol. II, Part 2 to 4 has been given in such order. It has been admitted by Respondent No.3 in order dated 27.01.2020 (Annexure: A 4) that the petitioner was entitled to gratuity and, therefore, a direction was given to the Pension Clerk to release gratuity in favour of the petitioner.

It is, therefore, held that the petitioner is entitled to gratuity consequent upon acceptance of petitioner’s resignation.

This Tribunal, relying upon the Govt. Order dated 10.08.2004 and hosts of other decisions, is of the view that petitioner should be paid interest on delayed payment of gratuity, admissible to him, after three months of acceptance of his resignation till the date of actual payment.

The respondents are, therefore, directed to release gratuity in favour of the petitioner along with interest, which shall be simple rate of interest payable on General Provident Fund, after three months of the acceptance of his resignation till the date of actual payment.”

The submission of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-petitioners is that gratuity was not payable to the respondent under Regulation 418(a) of the Civil Service Regulations, as the respondent has tendered his resignation. Regulation 418(a) reads as follows:-

“418. (a) Resignation of the public service, or dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency in-efficiency not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination entails forfeiture of past service.”

The submission is that since the respondent had tendered his resignation, it amounted to forfeiture of past service, and consequently, no gratuity was payable to the respondent.

We find no merit in this submission. Firstly, the order passed by the S.P. Chamoli on 27.01.2020, when relied upon by the respondent before the Tribunal, was not disowned by the petitioners, and it was not claimed that the same was contrary to the Rules and Regulations applicable to the respondent. Secondly, reading of Regulation 418(a) shows that it is only resignations which stem from misconduct, insolvency inefficiency, or failure to pass a prescribed examination, which would lead to forfeiture of past service. Resignation, as contemplated by Regulation 418(a), is penal in nature. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioners that the resignation of the respondent was penal. It is resignation simplicitor.

That being the position, in our view, Regulation 418(a) is not attracted to the facts of the present case.

We do not find any merit in this writ petition, and the same is, hereby, dismissed.