STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS versus DHIRENDRA PAL SINGH

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 463 · Decided: 15-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR, PRAFULLA C. PANT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 9 S.C.R. 463 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS 
v. 
DHIRENDRA PAL SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. I 0866of2016) 
NOVEMBER 15, 2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Pension and gratuity - Withholding of - Propriety, in absence 
C 
of departmental enquiry or any proceedings u!Art. 351A, UP 
Regulations - Respondent, an Assistant Store Superintendent with 
the Irrigation Department of appellant-State - Discrepancies in the 
stock of the Departmental Store- Part of respondents pension and 
gratuity withheld on the ground of alleged misconduct committed D 
by him resulting in loss to the public exchequer - Recovery order 
quashed by High Court - On appeal, held: Admittedly, no 
departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent for the 
misconduct, if any, nor any proceedings were drawn as provided in 
Art.351A - The document which was the basis of enquiry and was 
relied upon by the State authorities itself reflected that the document 
E 
showing discrepancy in the stock was dated about more than five 
months after the retirement of the respondent-Therefore, High Court 
;ustified in quashing the recovery order - UP Civil Service 
Regulations - Art. 351A. 
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - s. 7(3-A) - Interest on delayed 
F 
payment of gratuity not to be given if the delay is due to the fault of 
employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing, from 
the controlling authority, for the delayed payment on this ground -
Held: On facts, appellants-employer had not sought any permission 
from controlling authority - Further, there was no delay on part of G 
employee as he made representations where after he filed a suit 
with respect to withheld amount of gratuity and pension - Direction 
given for payment of interest @ 6% p.a. on unpaid amount of 
pension and interest @ 8% p.a. on unpaid amount of gratuity. 
H 
463 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10866 
B 
c 
of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2016 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in SAD No. 408 of2016. 
Vishwajit Singh, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Aishwarya 
Pathak, Advs., for the Appellants. 
V. K. Garg, Sr. Adv., Niraj Kr. Sharma, Mrs. Noopur Dubey, 
Mrs. Priyanka Dixit, Ajay Kumar Singh, Advs., for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against order dated 31.05.2016, passed 
by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Special Appeal Defective 
D 
No. 408 of2016, whereby the intra-court appeal was dismissed affirming 
the order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ-A 
No. 49921 of2015. 
E 
F 
3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Dhirendra Pal Singh 
was Assistant Store Superintendent with the Irrigation Department of 
the State ofUttar Pradesh: He stood retired on 30.06.2009 on attaining 
the age of superannuation. At the time of his retirement GPF, leave 
encashment and 70% of gratuity and pension were cleared, but rest of 
the 30% of gratuity and computation of pension were held up. The 
stand of the appellants is that there were some discrepancies in the 
stock in the store of the department and some enquiries were going on 
as to loss caused to the public exchequer. After making representations 
when the remaining amount of gratuity and pension was not cleared, the 
respondent filed Civil Suit No. 338 of 2012. However, the same was 
dismissed as withdrawn as the appellants/State authorities, vide order 
dated 23 .07.2015 finally, on the basis ofalleged discrepancies withheld 
the remaining part of gratuity and pension of the respondent and, vi de 
G 
order dated 06.08.2015, directed recovery ofRs.7,26,589/-, from the 
retiral dues payable to the respondent~ which was challenged in the writ 
petition. 
4. There was no departmental enquiry initiated against the 
respondent and after about more than six years order as to finally 
H 
., 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS v. DHIRENDRA 
465 
PAL SINGH 
withholding of remaining pension on the ground of alleged misconduct 
A 
and the recovery was directed to be made from the respondent after 
serving a notice on him. Learned single Judge of the High Court found 
that the orders challenged in the writ petition cannot be sustained in law 
as neither recourse of Article 351-A of UP Civil Service Regulations 
was resorted to, nor any departmental enquiry was held. Learned sing

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.