RSA No.662 of 2011 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.662 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: 07.02.2011 The Secretary, Department of Industries and others ……Appellants Versus Smt. Suraj Kaur and others …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.1800-C of 2011 Although averments made in the application accompanied by affidavit do not make out a good ground for condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the appeal, yet adopting liberal approach as usually adopted in such matters by the Courts and also keeping in view the fact that the appeal has been preferred by State of Haryana and delay occurs on account of bureaucratic approach and procedural delays, delay of 30 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main appeal. Defendants-State of Haryana and others having succeeded in the trial Court, but having failed in the lower appellate Court, have filed the instant second appeal. Suit was filed by plaintiff-Sis Ram Langyan since deceased and represented by respondents as his legal RSA No.662 of 2011 (O & M) - 2 - representatives. The plaintiff retired from the service of the defendants as General Manager, District Industries Centre on 31.05.1995. His gratuity amount of Rs.70,125/- was withheld. The plaintiff sought release of the said amount by filing the suit. Defendants pleaded that at the time of retirement, the plaintiff stood charge-sheeted for major penalty under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (in short, Punishment Rules) and on account thereof, gratuity amount of the plaintiff was withheld. After regular inquiry, punishment of 10 % cut in the pension of the plaintiff was imposed. Defendants also alleged that plaintiff was also involved in major financial irregularities as pointed out by Audit report. Assistant Director (Industries) in inquiry report dated 17.07.1997 held the plaintiff along with some other officials guilty for the financial lapses. Accordingly, loss amount was to be recovered from the plaintiff and other officials. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 06.04.2009 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. However, first appeal preferred by legal representatives of the plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2010 and thereby plaintiff’s suit has been decreed for the gratuity amount along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of his retirement till recovery. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. RSA No.662 of 2011 (O & M) - 3 - Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that loss caused by plaintiff and other officials is to be recovered from them and, therefore, gratuity amount of the plaintiff has been rightly withheld. The contention is completely frivolous and meritless. At the time of retirement of the plaintiff on 31.05.1995, only charge-sheet under Rule 7 of the Punishment Rules was pending against him. The said charge-sheet has finally culminated in imposition of penalty of 10% cut in plaintiff’s pension. No other inquiry or disciplinary proceeding was pending against the plaintiff at the time of his retirement. Amount of gratuity, on retirement of the plaintiff was withheld on account of pendency of regular inquiry under Rule 7 of the Punishment Rules. The said ground is no longer available to withhold the gratuity amount of the plaintiff because punishment for the same has already been imposed on the plaintiff in November, 2002 i.e before the filing of the suit. However, inspite of finalization of the said inquiry, gratuity amount of the plaintiff was not withheld. Even the said inquiry was finalized after long delay of 7 ½ years of the retirement of the plaintiff. However, defendants were still not satisfied with the said inordinate delay in withholding the gratuity amount of the plaintiff. They continued to withhold the gratuity amount of the plaintiff even thereafter, although during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff even died. The defendants were still not satisfied. They have filed the instant second appeal to perpetuate their illegality and highhandedness. The amount of gratuity of the plaintiff is now being withheld on the ground of inquiry report dated 17.07.1997. It was allegedly found that plaintiff along with some other officials had committed financial lapses. The said preliminary inquiry was conducted two years after the retirement of the plaintiff. RSA No.662 of 2011 (O & M) - 4 - Consequently, gratuity amount which became due to be paid to the plaintiff on his retirement cannot be withheld on the basis of the said preliminary inquiry which was held two years after plaintiff’s retirement. It is not the case of the appellants that any order of recovery of any financial loss has been passed against the plaintiff. It is also not the case of the appellants that any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the plaintiff for recovery of any such loss. It is also not the case of the appellants that any charge-sheet for imposing any punishment on the plaintiff was served on him during his lifetime. On the contrary, even under Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume II, no departmental proceedings can be initiated in respect of any event which took place more than four years prior to institution of such proceedings. The alleged irregularities pertain to April and May, 1995. Consequently, no departmental proceedings relating to the same can be initiated after May, 1999. In addition to it, no punishment order can now be passed against the plaintiff, who has since died. However, defendants have no regards for all these circumstances, but they mechanically continue to withhold the gratuity amount of the plaintiff, who could not receive the same during his life time and now his legal representatives are also being deprived of the same, although plaintiff retired more than 15 years ago. Retiral benefits are supposed to be paid to an employee immediately on his retirement. Gratuity amount is not charity or alms but is rightful due amount of the plaintiff. From the aforesaid discussion, it is manifest that the instant appeal is not only meritless, but is also completely frivolous RSA No.662 of 2011 (O & M) - 5 - and depicts the usual callous attitude of the State Authorities. Accordingly, appeal deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs so that the State Authorities act with some responsibility. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. This appeal only demonstrates the highhandedness on the part of the appellants towards the plaintiff and his legal representatives. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine with exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- to to be paid to the respondents, who are legal representatives of the original plaintiff since deceased. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 07.02.2011 A.kaundal