ups_01054 — Applicant who retired as Sub-Postmaster (HSG-1) cannot be denied Gratuity, if President is not satisfied that there is misconduct under Rule 69 / Rule 9 committed by the Applicant

Applicant who retired as Sub-Postmaster (HSG-1) cannot be denied Gratuity, if President is not satisfied that there is misconduct under Rule 69 / Rule 9 committed by the Applicant — This chunk pertains to a case (OA No 362 of 2016) filed by an applicant who retired as Sub-Postmaster (HSG-1) seeking payment of gratuity despite non-payment due to criminal proceedings against him a... — Facts: Applicant herein retired from service on 30-1-2009 from the post of Sub-Postmaster (HSG-I). It is stated that the Applicant is falsely implicated in a criminal case resulting in initiation of disciplinary proceedings and suspending him which led to reducing the pay of the Applicant from ₹ 15,880 to 15,280 i.e., one stage till his date of retirement (30-11-2009) by treating the suspension period as on duty and recovery to the tune of ₹ 59,850 which amount was recovered on retirement. But no gratuity was paid to the Applicant. His prayer for payment of gratuity was rejected by the department by Senior Superintendent of Post Office, R-4 herein. Hence this OA is filed. Reply has been filed by Department justifying the non-payment of gratuity. Respondent state that the action of withholding of gratuity is as per Rule 69 (1)

(c) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Tribunal heard both sides and also the earlier similar cases and judgments which is quoted by the Applicant. The moot question involved in this case is, whether during the pendency of criminal proceedings, the Applicant is entitled for payment of gratuity or not℃ The only ground taken by the Respondents to deny the gratuity to the Applicant is due to pendency of criminal proceedings against the Applicant and in view of Rule 69 (1)

(c) of CCS (Pension) Rules. Even though similar cases had already been dealt with by Tribunal and there is no room to deviate from those ruling in this case, it is clarified that payment of Gratuity is governed by payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Gratuity can only be withheld under sub-section (6) of Section 4 of Gratuity Act. Tribunal reproduced Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules - "Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension". Rule 1

(a) to 2 of Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules in regard to “Provisional Pension where departmental or judicial proceeding may be pending” is also reproduced. Rule 9 of the Rules empower the President only to withhold or to withdraw pension permanently or for a specified period in whole or in part or to order recovery of pecuniary loss caused to state in whole or in part subject to minimum. Pension being a statutory right of the employee, only if the Applicant's case is a grave misconduct or irregularity, such measure to withdraw pension / gratuity offends the statutory right of the employee retired. Bearing the law as above, to withhold gratuity of the Applicant herein by way of penalty is wholly illegal. Relevant portion of sub-section 1 of Section 4 of payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is reproduced. Sub-section 6 is non obstante Section. A criminal case is pending against the Applicant before a Competent Court. In view of the pending criminal case, regular pension cannot be withheld under Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Gratuity cannot, in any case, be withheld or withdrawn under provisions of Rule 8 ibid.