Chandigarh, October 27 In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that an employee, whose rank is reduced as punishment for a day just before his retirement, would get gratuity and leave encashment on the basis of the entire month’s salary and not last day’s emoluments. The ruling, first of its kind, is significant as more often than not the powers that be reduce an employee’s rank for a day just before his superannuation, and then calculate the benefits on the basis of the salary payable on the last day. The ruling by Justice
Mahesh Grover came on a petition filed by Tarlok Singh against Guru Nanak Dev University and another respondent. Appearing on the petitioner’s behalf, Bajaj told the court that Tarlok Singh initially worked with the varsity as a clerk, before his promotion as an assistant. He faced disciplinary proceedings and punishment of reduction in rank was inflicted on him in January 1997. As a consequence, he was treated as a clerk. On the very next day, he superannuated. The respondents released the pension. But gratuity and leave encashment were not paid to the petitioner’s satisfaction. The respondents, in their reply, asserted the Punjab State Civil Service Rules, applicable in the case, governed the principles on release of gratuity. An attempt was made to make the court infer that the emoluments would have to be construed on the basis of the basic pay he was drawing on the date of retirement. Taking up the matter, Justice Grover asserted: “I am of the view that the reasoning adopted by the respondents to calculate the gratuity of the petitioner is not justified…. Evidently, emoluments mean basic pay which further means the amount drawn monthly by a government employee. “The petitioner, who was reduced in rank only for one day, cannot be construed to be drawing this pay for the entire month. If such an interpretation is accepted, it would amount to a complete fraud to deprive a person to his legitimate dues. After having suffered the punishment for one day, it cannot be held that the petitioner had drawn the pay for one month as a clerk. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the gratuity to be calculated on the basic pay which would mean the pay of an assistant and not that of a clerk. “Similarly, for the purposes of calculating the leave encashment, which is also dependent on the pay admissible on the day of retirement, I am of the view that similar logic should prevail… The respondents are directed to release the benefits to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible…TNS
Mahesh Grover came on a petition filed by Tarlok Singh against Guru Nanak Dev University and another respondent. Appearing on the petitioner’s behalf, Bajaj told the court that Tarlok Singh initially worked with the varsity as a clerk, before his promotion as an assistant. He faced disciplinary proceedings and punishment of reduction in rank was inflicted on him in January 1997. As a consequence, he was treated as a clerk. On the very next day, he superannuated. The respondents released the pension. But gratuity and leave encashment were not paid to the petitioner’s satisfaction. The respondents, in their reply, asserted the Punjab State Civil Service Rules, applicable in the case, governed the principles on release of gratuity. An attempt was made to make the court infer that the emoluments would have to be construed on the basis of the basic pay he was drawing on the date of retirement. Taking up the matter, Justice Grover asserted: “I am of the view that the reasoning adopted by the respondents to calculate the gratuity of the petitioner is not justified…. Evidently, emoluments mean basic pay which further means the amount drawn monthly by a government employee. “The petitioner, who was reduced in rank only for one day, cannot be construed to be drawing this pay for the entire month. If such an interpretation is accepted, it would amount to a complete fraud to deprive a person to his legitimate dues. After having suffered the punishment for one day, it cannot be held that the petitioner had drawn the pay for one month as a clerk. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the gratuity to be calculated on the basic pay which would mean the pay of an assistant and not that of a clerk. “Similarly, for the purposes of calculating the leave encashment, which is also dependent on the pay admissible on the day of retirement, I am of the view that similar logic should prevail… The respondents are directed to release the benefits to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible…TNS
No comments:
Post a Comment