Searching...
Friday, September 29, 2017

आपराधिक मुकदमे के दौरान रोकी जा सकती है ग्रेच्युटी, इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने दिया महत्वपूर्ण निर्णय

इलाहाबाद : इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने कहा है कि आपराधिक मुकदमा चल रहा हो तो ग्रेच्युटी रोकी जा सकती है। कोर्ट ने पीएसी 42वीं वाहिनी नैनी इलाहाबाद के सेवानिवृत्त प्लाटून कमांडर शिवनारायण सिंह की ग्रेच्युटी रोकने के कमांडेंट के आदेश को सही माना साथ ही याची के खिलाफ चल रहे आपराधिक मामले को यथाशीघ्र निर्णीत करने का निर्देश दिया है।

यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति अरुण टंडन और न्यायमूर्ति ऋतुराज अवस्थी की खंडपीठ ने शिवनारायण सिंह की विशेष अपील को खारिज करते हुए दिया है। मामले में 42वीं वाहिनी पीएसी के कमांडेंट ने 22 अक्टूबर 2012 के आदेश से प्लाटून कमांडर शिवनारायण सिंह की ग्रेच्युटी रोक दी। शिवनारायण 31 अक्टूबर 2012 को सेवानिवृत्त होने वाले थे।

विधि विरुद्ध गतिविधियों में लिप्त होने के आरोप में याची शिवनारायण सिंह पर आपराधिक मुकदमा चल रहा है। याची को मिलने वाली ग्रेच्युटी इसी आधार पर रोक दी गई। इसी आदेश को इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट में चुनौती दी गई। याची का कहना था कि आपराधिक मुकदमा विचाराधीन होने मात्र से ही ग्रेच्युटी नहीं रोकी जा सकती। 1961 की सेवा नियमावली में ग्रेच्युटी रोकने का कोई उपबंध नहीं है। सिविल सर्विस रेग्युलेशन पर नियमावली प्रभावी होगी।

एकलपीठ ने कमांडेंट के ग्रेच्युटी रोकने के आदेश को रेग्युलेशन के अंतर्गत मिले अधिकारों के तहत माना और याचिका खारिज कर दी जिसे इस विशेष अपील में चुनौती दी गई थी।याची के अधिवक्ता का कहना था कि सेवा नियमावली में ग्रेच्युटी रोकने का उपबंध नहीं है। रेग्युलेशन 351 ए के तहत नियमावली के विपरीत ऐसा आदेश विधि विरुद्ध है। कोर्ट ने कहा कि सिविल सर्विस रेग्युलेशन और 1961 की नियमावली में कोई विरोधाभास नहीं है। नियम नौ के तहत रेग्युलेशन 351 ए और कोर्ट के फैसलों को देखते हुए हस्तक्षेप नहीं किया जा सकता। कोर्ट ने कहा कि याची पर आरोप गंभीर हैं जिसमें केस चल सकता है।




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
A.F.R.
Court No. - 10 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 699 of 2016 


Appellant :- Shiw Narayan Singh 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vineet Kumar Singh,Shri H.N.Singh 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 


Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J. 
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. 


This intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge� dated 26.9.2013 passed in Writ-A 234 of 2013. 
The facts relevant for deciding the appeal are as under: 


Petitioner who was employed as a Platoon Commander in P.A.C. 42 Bn. Naini, Allahabad retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2013, prior his retirement, an order was made by the Commandant, 42 Bn P.A.C. Naini Allahabad dated 22.10.2012, wherein the gratuity payable to the petitioner was withheld because of the pendency of a criminal case being Case Crime No. 2038 of 2004 under Sections 451, 453 120-B IPC and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 


�This order of withholding the gratuity was subjected to challenge by means of the writ petition No. 234 of 2013. The writ Court after considering the Division Bench in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Jai Prakash 2014 (1) ADJ 207 (DB), has come to the conclusion that there is a provision for withholding the gratuity under the Regulations 351, 351-A and 351-AA as well as Regulation 919-A of the Civil Service Regulation which are admittedly applicable in the case of the petitioner. 
Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of State of U.P. and Others (supra) does not lay down the correct law, he would submit that the payment of gratuity to government servant is payable under U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules '1961'). According to the appellant in case of conflict between the Civil Service Regulation and Rules 1961 the later shall prevail. 
It is further contended that under Rules 1961, there is no provision for withholding the gratuity because of pendency any criminal case and therefore, the Division Bench Judgment which fails to take note of the aforesaid Rule does not lay down the correct law.� He placed reliance upon the Division Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava 2013 (2) UPLBEC 2369. 
We heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record of the present appeal. 



At the very outset, we may record under Rule 2 sub-Rule 2 of the Rules 1961. It is specifically provided that the provisions of the Civil Service Regulation will continue to apply upon the employees who are covered by the same, in so far as the provisions are not in conflict with the Rules 1961. The provision for withholding or otherwise of the gratuity have not been provided under the Rules 1961, the question of any inflict between Rules 1961 and the Civil Service Regulation which confer such a power will not arise. 
Therefore, we have no hesitation to record that the provisions of Civil Service Regulation in so far they provide a power and the procedure for withholding of the gratuity on retirement of a government service would continue to apply. 


Learned counsel for the appellant then contended under Rule 9 of the Rules 1961, a power to withhold gratuity with reference to Regulation 351-A has been provided for and therefore, the other provisions of the Civil Service Regulation will not apply.� 


In our opinion, the contention has only been raised to be rejected. There is a specific mention of Regulation 351-A under Rule 9 of the Rules 1961, but when such Rules as read Rule 2 sub-Rule 2, it would logically lead to a conclusion of other provisions of the Civil Service Regulation which are not in conflict with� the Rules 1961 would also apply. 


The Division of this Court in the case State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (supra) has dealt with the provisions of Civil Service Regulation specifically Regulation 351, 351-A and 351-AA read with Rule 919-A of Civil Service Regulation and has specifically held that gratuity can be withheld if person is facing criminal charges. The Division Bench judgment was binding upon the learned Single Judge. 


Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Bhagwati Prasad Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2008 (3) ALJ 150, in support of his plea. This judgment� has not taken into consideration the provisions of Regulation 351, 351-A and 351-AA� and Regulation 919 of Civil Service Regulation and therefore, it cannot be said to be laying down anything contrary to what has been laid down in the Division Bench judgement in the case of State of U.P. and Others (supra). The Division Bench in the case of State of U.P. and others (supra) has taken into consideration, all the provisions of the Civil Service Regulation as applicable for coming to the conclusion that gratuity can be withheld during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. 


We may also record that the judgment in the case State of U.P. and Others (supra) has specifically been taken note of by the Division Bench in the case of Bhagwati Prasad (supra) and has distinguished the same. We see no reason to take any different view the the one which has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the State of U.P and others Vs. Jai Prakash. 
We may also take note that another Division Bench judgment in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Faini Singh decided on 25.4.2014, has recognized the power of the State to withhold the gratuity in exercise power under Regulation 351, 351-A, 351-AA read with Section 919-A subject to the condition that criminal charges must not be trivial. 


In the facts of the case, we find the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious and therefore in the facts of the we are of the opinion that the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference in exercise of power under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. 
However, we direct that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall brought to the logical end at the earliest possible and the authorities concerned is directed do needful immediately.� 
The present special appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed 
Order Date :- 11.9.2017 
Akbar