Retired Govt Servant Can't Get Gratuity During Pendency Of Criminal Proceedings, Seriousness Of Offence Irrelevant: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that gratuity and final retiral dues cannot be released to a retired government servant during the pendency of criminal proceedings against him, and that the seriousness of the offence he is facing is irrelevant to the question.Regulation 351-AA of the Civil Services Regulations, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, provides that where departmental or...
The Allahabad High Court has held that gratuity and final retiral dues cannot be released to a retired government servant during the pendency of criminal proceedings against him, and that the seriousness of the offence he is facing is irrelevant to the question.
Regulation 351-AA of the Civil Services Regulations, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, provides that where departmental or judicial proceedings or an enquiry by the Administrative Tribunal are pending on the date of retirement or are to be instituted after retirement, a provisional pension as provided in Regulation 919-A may be sanctioned.
Clause (3) of Regulation 919-A provides that no death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be paid to a government servant until the conclusion of such proceedings and the issue of final orders on them.
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held,
“In view of the categorical prohibition made in Clause-(3) of the Regulation 919-A, the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not entitled for the release of the gratuity and final retirement dues and seriousness of the offence is an irrelevant fact with regard to the applicability of Regulation 919-A as well as Regulation 351-AA.”
Petitioner, a Constable in the U.P. Police, attained the age of superannuation on 31st March 2016 and was granted only provisional pension. By order dated 8th June 2016, gratuity and leave encashment were denied to him on account of the pendency of Case Crime No. 446 of 2008 under Sections 223/224 IPC, Police Station Wazeerganj, District Lucknow. That order was challenged in the writ petition.
The criminal case arose out of an incident in 2008, when the petitioner was assigned to escort an accused of the Gangster Court at Lucknow and the accused escaped from his custody. Departmental proceedings on the same allegation ended in his dismissal from service on 5th October 2010. That order was set aside by the High Court for want of a show cause notice on the proposed punishment, with liberty to pass a fresh order. A fresh punishment order reverted him to the minimum of his pay scale for one year.
Petitioner argued that regular pension, gratuity and other retiral dues cannot be withheld unless a serious crime is involved.
The question before the Court was whether a government servant can claim release of gratuity, other retiral dues and regular pension during the pendency of criminal proceedings against him.
Reading Regulations 351, 351-A, 351-AA and 919-A together, the Court held that Regulation 351 deals with cases where the government servant has already been convicted of a serious crime or held guilty of grave misconduct, and Regulation 351-A operates where the pensioner has been found guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government in departmental or judicial proceedings. It held that neither applied to the petitioner.
“Regulation 351-AA and Regulation 919-A would apply in the instant case which categorically provide that once criminal proceedings or judicial proceedings are pending against a government servant, during the pendency of such proceedings, only provisional pension shall be accorded to such government servant and gratuity and death-cum-retirement benefits cannot be released to such government servant against whom judicial proceedings are pending.”
The Court observed that the escape of an accused from the petitioner's custody, whether deliberate or the result of negligence, was a serious matter because it affected the efficient administration of justice as a whole and such negligence could paralyse the entire judicial and police administration.
Noting that the petitioner had already been released provisional pension and other benefits, and the criminal proceedings remained pending, the Court held that he was not entitled to any relief at this stage.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents for release of gratuity subject to his acquittal in the criminal case, in which event he would be entitled to all retiral dues including gratuity.
Case Title: Hanuman Prasad Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others