JARNAIL SINGH versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 318 · Decided: 03-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
JARNAIL SINGH 
v. 
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF.HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 3, 1992 '. 
[J.S. VERMA, YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND 
N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Cent~al Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972-Rule 9 r/w Rule 3(J)(o)-
Whether prior to 1991 Amendment payment of gratuity could be withheld as 
C punishment for recovery of loss sustained to government-Held, 'pension' or-
dinarily inclztdes gratuity except when used in contradistinction to 
gratuity--1991 Amendment including gratitity only clarificatory--Constitution 
of bidia, Article 366 (17}-Central Civil Services (Pension). Rules, 1972, 
Rr.69(1)(c), 71 and 73. 
D 
E 
The appellant retired as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Home 
Affairs on ~1.3.86. An inq~iry was held in consultation with the Union 
Public Service Commission and the appellant was found to have com-
mitted serious irregularities. By order dated 26.5.88; the President of India 
directed that full .monthly pension and the entire amount of death-cum-
retirement gratuity otherwise admissible to the appellant be withheld on a 
permanent basis. 
The Central Administrative Trib.,nal rejected the appellant'-s chal• 
lenge to the order. 
F 
In the Supreme Court, notice was confined to the question whether, 
by way of punishment, the payment of gratuity also could be withheld for 
recovery of loss sustained by the government. 
The appellant contended that 'pension' in Rule 9 of the Central Civil 
G Services (Pension) Rules 1972 did not inCliide gratuity. He relied on the 
amendment made to Rule 9 in 1991 wherein ·~toity was expressly in-
cluded in Rule 9, and submitted that prior to the amendment Rule 9 could 
not be construed to confer the power of withholding gratuity in addition 
to pension. 
H 
In reply it was contended that the 1991 amendment was merely 
318 
) 
JARNAILSINGH v. SECY. MIN. OF HOME AFFAIRS [VERMA,J,] 319 
clarificatory as was evident from the definition of 'pension' in Rule 3(1)(o) A 
of the Rules. Reference was also made to Article 366(17) of the Constitu~ 
ti on. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court, 
HELD: 1. From the definition of 'pension' in Rule 3(1)(o) of the B 
Rules it is clear that ordinarily the word 'pension' wherever used in the 
Rules includes gratuity except where it is used in contradistinction to 
gratuity. [321-A] 
'Pension' as used in Rule 9(1) read with Rule 3(1)(o) includes 
gratuity, since it is not used in contradistinction to gratuity •. [321-E] 
C 
2. The amendment to Rule 9(1) by the Central Civil Services (Pen-
sion) Third Amendment Rules 1991 wherein the term 'pension' has been 
substituted by the expression 'pension or gratuity, or both' is merely 
clarificatory. [321-G] 
D 
Rule 3(l)(o) was not brought to the notice of the court. in D.V. 
Kapoor's case. [322-D] 
D. V. Kapoor v. Union of India & Ors., [1990] 4 SCC 314 differed from 
. F.R. Jesuratnam v. Union of India, [1990] Supp SCC 640, referred to. 
E 
3. Rr. 69(1)(c), 71 and 73 of the Rules, and Article 366(17) of the 
Constitution also supports this view. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.5158 of 
~ 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.1989 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Delhi in Regn. No. O.A. 1326 of 1988. 
S.S. Rana for the the Appellant. 
Altaf Ahmad, Addi. Solicitor General, C.V.C. Rao and Hemant 
Sharma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VERMA, J. Leave granted. 
G 
H 
... 
A 
B 
c 
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
The appellant, J arnail Singh, retired from the post of Under 
Secretary in -the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 31st 
March, 1986. By the Order dated 26.5.1988, the President of India directed 
that the full monthly pension and the entire amount of death-cum-retire-
ment gratuity, otherwise admissible to the appellant, be withheld on a 
permanent basis. This direction was given on account of serious ir-
regulariti~s found to have been committed by the appellant in an inquiry 
held for the purpose and in consultation with the Union Public Service 
Commission. The appellant challenged this Order before the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal which has rejected the appellant's contention and 
dismissed the application made for quashing this Order. Hence this appeal 
against the Tribunal's Order by special leave. 
Notice on the petitioner's special leave petition was confined only to 
the question whether, by way of punishment, the payment of gratuity also 
could be withheld, for recovery of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.