Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Achut S/o Venkateshrao Joshi, was a Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry in the employment of the respondents (State of Maharashtra, Divisional Commissioner, and Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed). He retired on 31st May 1990 with an unblemished service career. All retirement benefits except gratuity were paid to him. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, passed an order dated 15th October 1991 withholding the petitioner's gratuity. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The court noted that the impugned order did not disclose any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, nor was any show cause notice issued to him before passing the order. The court held that the order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. The court further observed that the respondents had not placed any material on record to justify the withholding of gratuity. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to pay the gratuity amount to the petitioner within three months from the date of the order, failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order until payment.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Gratuity - Withholding of Gratuity - Section 8 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; Section 154 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 - The petitioner, a retired Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry, was denied gratuity by the Divisional Commissioner without any finding of misconduct or show cause notice - The court held that gratuity cannot be withheld without establishing misconduct and that the order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice - Held that the impugned order is quashed and set aside (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Divisional Commissioner could withhold the gratuity of a retired employee without establishing any misconduct or issuing a show cause notice, and whether the order was sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15th October 1991 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the gratuity amount to the petitioner within three months from the date of the order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order until payment.
Law Points
- Gratuity cannot be withheld without establishing misconduct
- Withholding of gratuity requires specific finding of misconduct
- Section 8 of Payment of Gratuity Act
- 1972
- Section 154 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act
- 1961
