The Patna High Court has clarified that a retired government employee cannot be denied gratuity merely because of an ongoing judicial proceeding, if the departmental proceedings have already culminated in a final punishment and no specific order has been passed to withhold gratuity.
In this case, the petitioner, a retired Sub Inspector, approached the Court after his gratuity and full pension were not paid by the authorities even after retirement on 31.08.2020. The authorities justified this action citing an ongoing vigilance case and departmental proceedings.
The background of the case reveals that the petitioner was trapped in a bribery case by the Vigilance Department in 2016, and a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against him. Simultaneously, a departmental proceeding was initiated which led to his dismissal from service in 2019. However, the High Court earlier set aside the dismissal and directed reinstatement with back wages, allowing the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings if necessary.
Following reinstatement, the petitioner superannuated. The departmental proceeding was converted into a post-retirement proceeding under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Eventually, a punishment of withholding two increments and 10% of pension for one year was imposed. However, no separate or specific order was issued for withholding gratuity.
The petitioner argued that the punishment had already concluded, and the rule under which gratuity could be withheld—Rule 43(D)—required a specific order. The State, however, maintained that since judicial proceedings were pending, the petitioner wasn’t entitled to gratuity under Rule 43(D).
The Court held that once a departmental proceeding is concluded and a specific punishment is imposed, the authorities cannot withhold gratuity without a conscious, separate decision under Rule 43(D). The rule does not automatically authorize such withholding; it merely empowers the State to do so in specified circumstances.
Accordingly, the Court directed the authorities to pay the petitioner his gratuity and the remaining 10% of his pension. It further clarified that the withheld pension for the one-year period could be reviewed after the criminal case concludes.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment offers significant relief to retired government employees in Bihar facing prolonged disciplinary or criminal proceedings. It reaffirms that pension and gratuity are not mere privileges but earned rights, and cannot be arbitrarily withheld without specific legal justification. For the State, it serves as a reminder to follow due process and avoid overstepping jurisdiction in post-retirement proceedings.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether gratuity can be withheld in the absence of a specific order under Rule 43(D) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950?
➤ No, the Court held that there must be a specific, conscious order to withhold gratuity. - Does a concluded departmental proceeding bar further action under Rule 43(D)?
➤ Yes, once the departmental proceeding has culminated in a punishment, the department cannot extend or modify the penalty unless expressly allowed. - Can judicial proceedings alone justify withholding gratuity?
➤ Not without a specific order, the mere pendency of judicial proceedings does not automatically justify withholding gratuity.
Case Title
Dinesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1757 of 2022
Citation(s)– 2025 (1) PLJR 74
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Mr. Pranav Bhaskar, Mr. Birottam Narayan Singh – for the petitioner
- Mr. Manish Kumar (GP-4), Mr. Ajay Kumar – for the respondents
Link to Judgment
MTUjMTc1NyMyMDIyIzEjTg==-qzFF0uANLNo=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
