Allahabad High Court
CHHATRAPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 ORS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKRAM D CHAUHAN
Holding
The Court set aside the order retaining Rs.1,12,546 and directed the respondents to release the full retirement dues to the legal heirs.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired Technical Grade‑II employee, filed a writ petition seeking the release of his pending retirement dues, including pension, gratuity and commutation amount, which had been retained by the respondents despite the absence of any disciplinary punishment. The High Court noted that the retention was based on a pending First Appeal in a compensation case where the petitioner was not a party, and that only a preliminary inquiry—not a disciplinary proceeding—had been conducted against him. The respondents could not point to any statutory provision or court order authorising the withholding of the dues in the absence of a punishment order. The Court held that without a disciplinary finding, the employer had no legal basis to retain the retirement amount of Rs.1,12,546. Consequently, the impugned order dated 26‑Feb‑2014 was set aside and the respondents were directed to release the full dues to the petitioner’s legal heirs within three months, and the writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether retirement dues can be retained in the absence of a disciplinary punishment against the employee.
- Whether a preliminary inquiry alone justifies withholding pension, gratuity, and commutation amounts.
- Whether the employer may deduct amounts pending a compensation appeal where the employee is not a party.
Subjects
- retirement dues
- pension
- gratuity
- commutation of pension
- disciplinary proceedings
- preliminary inquiry
- service law
- withholding of dues
- legal heirs
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 47081 of 2014
Chhatrapal Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Kumar Rai, S.P. Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashutosh Vaish, Ayank Mishra, C.S.C.,
Pawan Kumar Mishra
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
1. Compliance affidavit filed by learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3,
is taken on record.
2. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 submits that cost of Rs.2000/-
has been deposited with the Registrar General of this Court and an
endorsement to the aforesaid effect has also been made by the Registry in
the order sheet.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent
nos.2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
4. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 26.2.2014 passed by the Executive Engineer opposite party no.3
(contained in Annexure No.6 to this writ petition).
ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
opposite parties no.2 to pay full pension to the petitioner and also arrears of
difference of pension within reasonable period as this Hon'ble Court may specify.
iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
opposite parties no.3 to forthwith pay other retirement dues like pension computation,
withheld 25% amount of gratuity within some specified period which this Hon'ble
Court deem fit and proper."
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was
working on the post of Technical Grade-II and has since retired on
30.11.2010. Earlier the petitioner has approached this Court by means of
WRIA No. 47081 of 2014
2
Writ-A No.70335 of 2013 wherein this Court on 19.12.2023 has passed the
following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Mani Tripathi holding brief
of Sri Ayank Misra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 and Learned Standing
Counsel.
The petitioner was working as Technical Gr.II in the office of Executive Engineer,
Electricity Distribution Divison II, Azmgarh and retired as such on 30.11.2010.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner is being paid regular
pension, however, the gratuity and amount of commutation of pension have not been
paid so far in spite of various reminders.
The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 to consider the
claim with regard to the payment of gratuity as also commutation of pension within a
period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order along with a fresh
representation is produced before it.
In case it is found that the petitioner is not entitled for the amount claimed by him , the
same shall be communicated to him by passing a reasoned and speaking order within
the same period."
5-A. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in pursuance to above
mentioned order, the present impugned order dated 26.2.2014 has been
passed whereby partial retiral dues of petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,12,546/-
has been retained by respondents. Learned counsel for petitioner submits
that the aforesaid retention of retiral dues is primarily based on the fact that
the award was passed against respondent nos.2 and 3, against which, First
Appeal From order No.1339-D of 2009 has been filed in respect of alleged
incident where one Rajendra Singh Patel has died. Learned counsel for
petitioner submits that no disciplinary proceedings were held against
petitioner and the amount being retained by respondents during pendency of
above mentioned First Appeal From Order is not tenable, as there is no
disciplinary proceedings against petitioner. Preliminary inquiry was held,
which itself cannot be a ground for retaining the retiral dues of petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that during pendency of writ petition,
petitioner has expired and legal heirs have been brought on record by order
of this Court dated 3.9.2021.
6. This Court by order dated 19.1.2026 granted time to learned counsel for
respondent nos.2 and 3 to obtain instructions whether any disciplinary
proceeding was held against petitioner for any loss sustained by the
WRIA No. 47081 of 2014
3
employer and the nature of loss, which the employer has sustained.
7. Today, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, on instructions,
submits that no disciplinary proceedings were held against petitioner and
only preliminary inquiry was held and on the aforesaid basis, the amount has
been retained.
8. On a pointed query being made to learned counsel for respondent nos.2
and 3 as to under which law, the amount has been retained by the
respondents when no punishment order has been passed, learned counsel for
respondent nos.2 and 3 could not satisfy the Court with regard to provision
under which the amount has been retained. Neither any order of the Court
has been shown, which directs the retention of aforesaid amount in the
pending First Appeal From Order.
9. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 that
in the First Appeal From Order, petitioner-employee was not party and
therefore, once the petitioner is not party in the compensation proceedings
and the employer was party then the employer could not have saddled the
employee with the compensation amount unless the disciplinary proceedings
are opened and the employee has been given fair opportunity. In the present
case, such exercise has not been completed. There is no justification for
retaining the amount.
10. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 26.2.2014 passed by
Executive Engineer is hereby set aside in respect of retention of amount of
Rs.1,12,546/- and the respondents are directed to release the remaining
retiral dues of the petitioner-employee to the legal heirs, in accordance with
law, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified
copy of order.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
March 18, 2026
D. Tamang
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA TAMANG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…