Court Cases

Chhattisgarh High Court Rules State Cannot Withhold Gratuity Without Pre-Retirement Inquiry


➡️ Click here to join our Whatsapp Group

The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the state government cannot withhold gratuity from a retired Revenue Sub-Inspector without conducting a prior departmental inquiry. The decision was made by a division bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, who cited the precedent set in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) to affirm that recovery from Class III employees after their retirement is illegal unless proceedings were initiated before their superannuation.

The case involved B.P. Tiwari, a former Revenue Sub-Inspector, who retired on March 31, 2019. When Tiwari applied for his retirement benefits, he was granted a partial gratuity of Rs. 2,21,341, but the remaining amount of Rs. 4,68,194 was withheld. The authorities claimed that Tiwari had misappropriated funds during his tenure as Incharge Chief Municipal Officer at Nagar Panchayat Chhuriya. The alleged misappropriation, amounting to Rs. 4,68,194, was based on audits conducted in 2008-09, which found a total misappropriation of Rs. 10,14,170.

However, despite the allegations, no departmental inquiry or show-cause notice was issued to Tiwari before his retirement. Tiwari, dissatisfied with the withheld amount, filed a writ petition seeking the release of the full gratuity. A Single Judge of the High Court ruled in his favor, directing the state to release the full gratuity with 8% simple interest. The state then filed an appeal against this ruling.

In its appeal, the state, represented by Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, argued that withholding the gratuity was justified due to the pending departmental inquiry and the financial loss caused by Tiwari’s alleged misappropriation. The state also referred to a letter dated July 16, 2020, which suggested that Tiwari was liable for Rs. 3,38,057.

On the other hand, Tiwari’s lawyer, Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, argued that no inquiry or show-cause notice had been initiated before Tiwari’s retirement. She cited the Rafiq Masih case, which prohibits recovery from retired Class III employees unless specific conditions are met, including the initiation of proceedings before retirement.

The division bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, noting that Tiwari was a Class III employee and that the state failed to initiate any inquiry or issue a show-cause notice before his retirement. The court emphasized that under Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of the Pension Rules, 1976, any judicial or departmental proceedings must be initiated before retirement to justify withholding gratuity. Since this requirement was not met, the court ruled that Tiwari was entitled to receive his full gratuity.

The court dismissed the state’s appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s order, directing the release of the full gratuity amount to Tiwari, along with interest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Home
Calculators
Menu
Search