# Anil Kumar Puri v. Distt. Coop. Bank Ltd. Sitapur & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 1098
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-24
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 15591 of 2019
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-kumar-puri-v-distt-coop-bank-ltd-sitapur-anr-47638
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law-Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226-challenge to-withhold of
retiral
benefits-petitioner
received
all
retiral benefits except the amount of
gratuity after retirement-on account of
misconduct amount of gratuity had been
adjusted towards NPA loan accounts of
eight borrowers-However, nothing has
been proved against the petitioner-Even
the enquiry have not been done properly
as to whether the loans were wrongly and
illegally disbursed by the petitioner-no
effort has been made by the respondents
to recover the amount after retirement of
petitioner-therefore, amount of gratuity of
the petitioner has wrongly and illegally
been forfeited-executive instructions are
not
having
statutory
character,
and
therefore cannot be termed as law within
the meaning of Article 300A. (Para 1 to
22)

B. It is settled that the Gratuity and
pension are not bounties and an employee
gets these benefits by his long continuous
fulfilled unblemished service as such it is
hard earned benefit of an employee and is
in the nature of property. the right of
property cannot be taken away without
due process of law as per provisions of
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Without any proof of misconduct or loss
by the petitioner, the same could not have
been adjusted towards NPA loan account
merely on the basis of a resolution passed
against the petitioner. (Para 15, 16)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

35. We are of the considered opinion that
the action of the appellant herein was not
merely to highlight the shortcomings in the
organization. The appellant had indulged in
making scandalous remarks by alleging that
there was widespread corruption within the
organization. Such allegations would clearly
have a deleterious effect throughout the
organization apart from casting shadows of
doubts on the integrity of the entire project. It
is for this reason that employees working
within the highly sensitive atomic organization
are sworn to secrecy and have to enter into a
confidentiality agreement. In our opinion, the
appellant had failed to maintain the standard
of confidentiality and discretion which was
required to be maintained. In the facts of this
case, it is apparent that the appellant can take
no advantage of the observations made by this
Court in the case of Indirect Tax Practitioners'
Association (supra). This now brings us to the
reliance placed by the appellant on the
judgment in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes
Case (supra). In our opinion, the ratio in the
aforesaid judgment would have no relevance
in the case of the appellant. We are not
satisfied that this is a case of ''glaring
injustice".

30. A perusal of the complaints made by
the petitioner will make it abundantly clear
that they have not been made in public interest
but have singled out and target the Jail
Superintendent
posted
along
with
the
petitioner. A perusal of the complaint dated
27/04/2020 clearly indicates that he has
highlighted irregularities committed by one
Umesh Singh who was posted as Jail
superintendent, and the complaints dated
30/04/2020 and 16.6.2020 also contains
similar allegations. Considering the facts of the
present case in light of the pronouncement of
the Apex Court in the case of Manoj H.
Mishra (supra), this Court is of the considered
view that the petiitoner cannot be given the
statuts or consequent protection of whistle
blower.

31. The enquiry report also considers
and contains sufficient material on the basis of
which the petitioner had been chargesheeted,
and it cannot be said at this stage that the
allegations are false or not made out. The
petitioner having made allegations against a
particular individual cannot claim the status of
a whistleblower in as much as according to the
judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court the
same has not been made in bonafide manner,
inasmuch as he has himself been found to be
implicated in the irregularities which he
himself has brought to fore. It is only when the
matter is inquired into by a regular enquiry,
then only the entire facts can be brought forth
and this Court would not interfere to prevent
the conduct of such an enquiry.

32. In light of the above discussions, the
writ petition is bereft of merits and is
accordingly dismissed. However, it is
provided that the respondents shall proceed to
conclude the enquiry expeditiously in
accordance with law.

33. Useful assistance provided in the
matter by Mr. Himanshu Mishra, Law Clerk
Trainee is appreciated.
----------
(2022)01ILR A1098
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Service Single No. 15591 of 2019

Anil Kumar Puri ...Petitioner
Versus
Distt. Coop. Bank Ltd. Sitapur & Anr.
 ...Respondents
1 All. Anil Kumar Puri Vs. Distt. Coop. Bank Ltd. Sitapur & Anr.
1099
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Manoj Kumar, Sridhar Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.R. Khan

A. Service Law-Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226-challenge to-withhold of
retiral
benefits-petitioner
received
all
retiral benefits except the amount of
gratuity after retirement-on account of
misconduct amount of gratuity had been
adjusted towards NPA loan accounts of
eight borrowers-However, nothing has
been proved against the petitioner-Even
the enquiry have not been done properly
as to whether the loans were wrongly and
illegally disbursed by the petitioner-no
effort has been made by the respondents
to recover the amount after retirement of
petitioner-therefore, amount of gratuity of
the petitioner has wrongly and illegally
been forfeited-executive instructions are
not
having
statutory
character,
and
therefore cannot be termed as law within
the meaning of Article 300A. (Para 1 to
22)

B. It is settled that the Gratuity and
pension are not bounties and an employee
gets these benefits by his long continuous
fulfilled unblemished service as such it is
hard earned benefit of an employee and is
in the nature of property. the right of
property cannot be taken away without
due process of law as per provisions of
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Without any proof of misconduct or loss
by the petitioner, the same could not have
been adjusted towards NPA loan account
merely on the basis of a resolution passed
against the petitioner. (Para 15, 16)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Whirlpool Corp. Vs Registrar of Trade Marks
(1998) 8 SCC 1

2. Radha Krishna Industries Vs St. of H.P.
& ors. (2021) 6 SCC 771

3. St. of Jharkhand & ors. Vs Jitendra Kumar
Srivastava & anr.. Civil Appeal No. 6770 of
2013

4. Amod Prasad Rai Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2009)
SCC OnLine All. 2624

5. Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank Vs U.O.I.
& ors. (2019) SCC OnLine All. 4945

6. Remington Rand of India Ltd. Vs The
Workmen (1970) AIR SC 1421 The Mgmt of
Tournamulla Estate Vs Workmen (1973) AIR SC
2344

7. Secretary, O.N.G.C. Ltd. & anr. Vs V.U.
Warrier (2005) 5 SCC 245

8. M/S SAIL Ltd. Vs Raghbendra Singh & ors.,
SC, SLP No. 11025 of 2020

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard, Shri Sudeep Seth, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sridhar
Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Shri A.R.Khan, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. The writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India has been filed
challenging the resolution No.43 passed by
opposite
party
no.2/Committee
of
Management, District Cooperative Bank
Limited, Sitapur in its meeting dated
07.10.2013. The further prayer has been
made for commanding the opposite parties
to release and pay the retiral benefits of
Gratuity
amounting
to
Rs.6,17,905/-
alongwith accrued interest thereon w.e.f.
01.07.2013 till the date of payment at the
rate of 18% per annum to the petitioner.
1100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The brief facts, for adjudication of
the case, are that the petitioner retired on
30.06.2013 on attaining the age of
superannuation
from
the
services
of
respondent no.1/District Cooperative Bank
Limited,
Sitapur. The
petitioner
was
informed
about
his
retirement
on
30.06.2013 by means of an order dated
22.06.2013 and his relieving on the said
date as the charge was to be handed over to
one Shri Ashish Shukla, who had to assume
the charge. The petitioner received all the
retiral benefits except the amount of
Gratuity after his retirement on 30.06.2013.
The petitioner made a representation dated
29.10.2013 and reminder dated 12.06.2014
to the opposite party no.1 for payment of
his
Gratuity. Thereafter
he
made
a
representation
on
19.12.2014
to
the
opposite party no.2 for payment of
Gratuity. On the representation dated
19.12.2014 of the petitioner the Chairman
of the Bank made an endorsement to the
Secretary/Chief Executive Officer of the
Bank to make payment of Gratuity
forthwith. However the Gratuity was not
paid to the petitioner.

4. The petitioner approached to the
Regional Labour Commissioner, who on an
objection raised by the opposite party no.1
regarding jurisdiction of the Regional
Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow,
closed the case by means of the order dated
30.09.2015 and granted liberty to the
petitioner to raise his grievance before the
appropriate
forum
at
State
of
U.P.
Thereafter the petitioner approached the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Lucknow
under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972
vide P.G. Case No.124 of 2015. He
disposed of the case by means of order
dated 16.08.2016 on the ground that he has
no jurisdiction. The petitioner thereafter
approached to the Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, U.P., Lucknow by means of the
application dated 23.12.2016, who by
means of the order dated 04.01.2017
directed to the Secretary/Chief Executive
Officer to take necessary action for
immediate payment of the amount of
Gratuity of the petitioner. The response
thereof was sent to the opposite party no.1
on 10.02.2017 informing that the post
retiral benefits i.e. Provident Fund, Group
Insurance and Leave Encashment have
been paid to the petitioner on various dates.
It had further been informed that the
amount of Gratuity of Rs.6,17,905/- has
been received from the Insurance Company
but since the loan amount disbursed by the
petitioner had not been recovered from the
borrowers and the petitioner had not made
any effort to recover the loan amount and
the said accounts have become non
performing assets (NPA) as such under the
provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972
the amount of Gratuity had been adjusted
towards the NPA loan accounts of 8
borrowers. It was also informed that in case
borrowers deposit the loan amount, the said
amount would be paid/released to the
petitioner. A certificate dated 24.04.2015
had been issued by the Mahmoodabad
Branch of the Bank with respect to the
three loan accounts in which the amount
had been deposited from time to time.

5. The petitioner again approached to
the
Additional
Commissioner
and
Additional
Registrar
(Banking),
Cooperative Societies, U.P., Lucknow for
payment of amount of Gratuity by means of
representation
dated
04.08.2018.
In
response thereof it was informed to the
petitioner by means of letter dated
13.02.2019 that the amount of Gratuity had
been adjusted against the NPA loan
accounts of the defaulter borrowers and
there being a provision to settle the dispute
1 All. Anil Kumar Puri Vs. Distt. Coop. Bank Ltd. Sitapur & Anr.
1101
under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act 1965 and Chapter 18 of Rules
1968, therefore he may institute an
Arbitration Case. Therefore the petitioner
had approached this court by means of writ
petition Service Single No.14287 of 2019,
but he was not having the resolution dated
07.10.2013, therefore he got the writ
petition dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to file a fresh. Thereafter filed the
present writ petition challenging the
resolution dated 07.10.2013 passed by the
opposite party no.2.

6. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

7. An objection was raised by learned
counsel for the respondents that the petitioner
has an alternative and statutory remedy of
Arbitration under Section 70 of the U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act 1965 and Chapter
18 of Rules 1968, therefore, the writ petition
is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed
on this ground. Learned counsel for the
petitioner had submitted that the amount of
gratuity of petitioner has been adjusted
towards
NPA
loan
accounts
without
jurisdiction or authority of law. The remedy
provided under Section 70 is also not
efficacious remedy and the petitioner will be
required to deposit 1% of the fee amount for
raising his grievance in Arbitration and the
petitioner is already on the verge of starvation
and famine as pension is not admissible to
him, therefore the petitioner has approached
to this court by means of the present writ
petition and he may not be relegated to
alternative remedy and writ petition may be
decided on merit.

8. It appears that this plea was not
raised when the writ petition had come up
for hearing for the first time on
29.05.2019 and the time for counter
affidavit was sought and granted by this
court. This court had also directed to list
the case in the category of senior citizen as
the petitioner is a senior citizen. The
petitioner had retired after attaining the age
of superannuation on 30.06.2013. The
various correspondences and proceedings
were undertaken by the petitioner since his
retirement as disclosed above. But it
appears that the respondents had not taken
this plea. The counter and rejoinder
affidavits have been exchanged. This court
also finds that purely question of law is
involved in the present writ petition as to
whether the amount of Gratuity can be
adjusted towards NPA loan accounts after
retirement or not without any authority of
law. That too without inquiry and proved
misconduct of an employee. Normally the
writ petition should not be entertained if
there is an alternative remedy but there is
no bare also. Therefore in the facts and
circumstances of the case, this court feels it
appropriate to decide the case on merit
instead of relegating it to the alternative
remedy.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Whirlpool Corporation Versus
Registrar of Trade Marks; (1998) 8 SCC
1, has held that in an appropriate case
inspite of availability of alternative remedy,
High
Court
may
still
exercise
its
jurisdiction in at least three contingencies
i.e.
where
the
writ
petition
seeks
enforcement of any of the fundamental
rights or where there has been a violation
of principles of natural justice or where the
orders or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction or vires of an Act is challenged.
The same view has been taken by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Radha Krishna Industries Versus State
of Himachal Pradesh and others; (2021)
6 SCC 771, and it has been held that the
rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a
rule of policy, convenience and discretion.

10. The sole issue which falls for
considering in this writ petition is as to
whether after retirement of an employee of
the
respondent-bank, his amount of
Gratuity can be adjusted towards NPA
loan accounts or not. The petitioner had
retired
after
attaining
the
age
of
superannuation on 30.06.2013 from the
service of the respondent no.1. Thereafter
all the retiral dues except the Gratuity
were paid to the petitioner. It appears that
the Gratuity has not been paid to the
petitioner on the basis of a resolution
dated 07.10.2013 of the respondent no.2
which reads as under:-

"fu.kZ;

lfpo cSad }kjk voxr djk;k x;k fd 'kk[kk
izcU/kd 'kk[kk vVfj;k ds }kjk izLrqr fjiksVZ ds
vuqlkj Jh vfuy iqjh lsok fuo`Rr deZpkjh oxZ&2 ds
}kjk muds 'kk[kk vVfj;k dk;Zdky esa Jherh lqeu
;kno dks Lohd`r ds0lh0lh0 _.k dh jkf'k eq0
31213-00 ,o Jh y{e.k dks Lohd`r ds0lh0lh _.k
dh jkf'k eq0 38117-00 :0 fnukad 30-09-2013 rd dh
olwyh gksuk 'ks"k gSA blh izdkj 'kk[kk egewnkckn
dk;Zdky esa Jh iqjh }kjk Lohd`r nhun;ky ;kstuk ds
8 lnL;ksa dh jkf'k eq0 652168-00 :0 VasfMax yksu 3
lnL;ksa dks Lohd`r eq0 241105-00 :0 ,oa miHkksDrk
_.k lnL; dks eq0 69000-00 :0 cdk;s esa iM+ pqdk
gSA VasafMx yksu ,oa miHkksDrk _.k ds C;kt dh x.kuk
30-06-2013 rd ,oa nhun;ky ;kstuk ds C;kt dh
x.kuk 31-01-2013 rd dh xbZA
loZlEefr ls mijksDr forfjr _.kksa dh tkap mi
egkizcU/kd la0fu0@fodkl ls djkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k
tkrk gSA tkap djkus ds mijkUr olwyh dh dk;Zokgh
lEikfnr dh tk;sA vxzsrj ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk
gS fd Hkfo"; esa fdlh deZpkjh ds lsok fuo`Rr gksus ls
de ls de nks o"kZ iwoZ mlds dk;Zdkyksa esa ckaVs x;s
_.kksa ds lkis{k cdk;k iMs _.kksa dh fLFkfr dh
eq[;ky; Lrj ij leh{kk dj yh tk;sA lfpo cSad
vuqorhZ dk;Zokgh laikfnr djsA"

11. The aforesaid resolution indicates
that the decision was taken, after retirement
of the petitioner, for conducting an inquiry
in regard to the disbursement of the loans
by the petitioner during his posting. It as
also
decided
that
after
inquiry
the
proceedings of recovery should be made.
The further decision was taken that in
future at least prior to two years of
retirement of any employee, the assessment
of the status of the loans disbursed during
his period may be made. Therefore the
decision was taken for conducting an
inquiry in regard to the loans disbursed by
the petitioner. Thereafter the proceedings of
recovery were to be undertaken. However,
in pursuance thereof the amount of Gratuity
of the petitioner has been adjusted towards
NPA loan accounts on account of alleged
none repayment of the loans without any
enquiry and proof of misconduct of
petitioner.

12. The services of the petitioner are
governed by the U.P. Cooperative Societies
Employees' Service Regulations, 1975
(hereinafter referred as Regulations 1975).
Section 95 provides for the Gratuity.
Regulation 95 is extracted below:-

"95-Gratuity-(i) A co-operative society
may by a resolution of its committee of
management
allow
to
its
employees
gratuity equivalent to not more than 15
days, salary for every complete year of
service (part of the year if less than six
months, to be ignored), if he has attained
the age of superannuation or has been
declared invalid for service by the Civil
Surgeon or has been retrenched or dies
while in service:

Provided he has put in ten years of
continuous service immediately preceding
retirement, invalidation, or retrenchment or
five years' continuous service in case of
1 All. Anil Kumar Puri Vs. Distt. Coop. Bank Ltd. Sitapur & Anr.
1103
death, as the case may be. In case of death,
gratuity shall be payable to the nominee of
the employee and in the absence of
nomination, to his legal heir;

(ii) For purposes of meeting its
obligations under clause(1), a co-operative
society ma create Employees' Gratuity
Fund."

13. In view of Regulation 95, an
employee would be entitled to Gratuity
equivalent to not more than 15 days salary
for every complete year of service, if he has
attained the age of superannuation provided
he has put in ten years of continuous
service immediately preceding retirement.
Admittedly the aforesaid Regulations are
applicable and the Payment of Gratuity Act
1972 is not applicable on the petitioner. The
petitioner had rendered the requisite service
mentioned in the aforesaid Regulation. He
retired
on
attaining
the
age
of
superannuation on 60 years of age.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for
Gratuity in accordance with the aforesaid
Regulations. However the same has not
been paid on the ground that certain loan
accounts disbursed by the petitioner have
become NPA. The petitioner has annexed a
certificate
dated
24.04.2015
of
the
concerned Branch of the Bank to indicate
that the repayment was being made time to
time in three loan accounts. However, as
stated, after adjustment of the amount of
Gratuity of the petitioner towards the said
loan accounts no repayment is being made.

14. It has been stated by the
respondent-bank
in
his
letter
dated
10.02.2017
to
the
Additional
Commissioner and Additional Registrar
(Banking), Cooperative Societies, U.P.
Lucknow that in case the loan amount is
deposited, the amount of Gratuity would
be paid to the petitioner. This court
fails to understand as to when the amount
has already been adjusted against the loan
accounts as to how and why the same
would be repaid by the defaulters.
Nothing has been brought before this
court to show that any inquiry was made
in pursuance of the resolution dated
07.10.2013 in regard to the loan accounts
and anything was found against the
petitioner. However it appears that no
effort has also been made in accordance
with law for recovery of the loan amounts
in regard to the loans in question.

15. It is settled that the Gratuity and
pension are not bounties and an employee
gets these benefits by his long continuous
fulfilled unblemished service as such it is
hard earned benefit of an employee and is
in the nature of property. The right of
property cannot be taken away without
due process of law as per provisions of
Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India. Nothing has been brought before
this court to show any provision of law
for withholding, forfeiting or adjustment
of amount of gratuity towards NPA loan
accounts. That too without any proof of
misconduct or loss by the petitioner
during his period of service. Therefore
the same could not have been adjusted
towards
NPA
loan
accounts
or
withheld/forfeited merely on the basis of
a resolution of the respondent no.2 passed
against the petitioner or any executive
instructions.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the issue in the case of State of
Jharkhand and others Versus Jitendra
Kumar Srivastava and another; Civil
Appeal No.6770 of 2013 and held as under
in paragraphs 14 and 15 by means of
1104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment and order dated 14th August,
2013;-

"14. Article 300 A of the Constitution
of India reads as under:

"300A Persons not to be deprived of
property save by authority of law. No
person shall be deprived of his property
save by authority of law."

Once we proceed on that premise, the
answer to the question posed by us in the
beginning of this judgment becomes too
obvious. A person cannot be deprived of
this pension without the authority of law,
which
is
the
Constitutional
mandate
enshrined in Article 300 A of the
Constitution. It follows that attempt of the
appellant to take away a part of pension or
gratuity or even leave encashment without
any statutory provisions and under the
umbrage
of
administrative
instruction
cannot be countenanced.

15. It hardly needs to be emphasized
that the executive instructions are not
having statutory character and, therefore,
cannot be termed as "law" within the
meaning of aforesaid Article 300A. On the
basis of such a circular, which is not having
force of law, the appellant cannot withhold;
even a part of pension or gratuity. As we
noticed above, so far as statutory rules are
concerned, there is no provision for
withholding pension or gratuity in the
given situation. Had there been any such
provision in these rules, the position would
have been different."

17. A Coordinate Bench of this court
in the case of Amod Prasad Rai Versus
State of U.P. and another; 2009 SCC
OnLine All.2624, in regard to a case
covered under the payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 held that withholding the Gratuity is
not permissible under any circumstance
other than those enumerated in section 4(6)
of the Act and right to gratuity is a statutory
right. Section 4(6) of the said Act provides
that the gratuity of an employee, can be
forfeited only on account of termination for
any act, willful omission or negligence
causing any damage or loss or destruction
of property belonging to the employer,
termination for his riotous or desorderly
conduct or any other act of violence on his
part or offence involving moral turpitude,
provided that such offence is committed by
him in the course of his employment. The
respondents have failed to show even any
such ground for withholding or forfeiting
the Gratuity of the petitioner against the
petitioner.

18. In the case of Baroda Uttar
Pradesh Gramin Bank Versus Union of
India and others; 2019 SCC OnLine
All.4945 considering the issue as to
whether the employers are entitled to
recover a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, ordered to be
realized from the terminal benefits of the
employee
in
enforcement
of
the
punishment order made in disciplinary
proceedings, by deducting it from gratuity
payable to the employee? The Coordinate
Bench held that the gratuity cannot be
forfeited without any power and also held
that what is not attachable in enforcement
of a decree of any court, civil, revenue or
criminal, cannot be made available to the
employer to recover his dues, howsoever,
lawfully adjudged. Thus gave answer to the
aforesaid question in negative.

19.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents has relied on Remington
Rand
of
India
Ltd.
Versus
The
Workmen; AIR 1970 Supreme Court
1421, The Management of Tournamulla
Estate Versus Workmen; AIR 1973
Supreme
Court
2344,
Secretary,
O.N.G.C. Ltd. and another Versus
1 All. Anurag Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1105
V.U.Warrier; (2005) 5 SCC 245 and M/S.
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus
Raghbendra Singh and others decided
on 15th December 2020, by the Supreme
Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.(s) 11025 of 2020.

20. These all cases relied by learned
counsel for the respondents are not
applicable on the facts and circumstances
of the present case because in the said cases
the forfeiture of gratuity has been upheld
on account of misconduct resulting in
damage of the property of the employer,
whereas in the present case nothing has
been proved against the petitioner, even the
enquiry as proposed in the impugned
resolution appears to have not been done to
find out as to whether the loans were
wrongly and illegally disbursed by the
petitioner to the ineligible persons. It
appears that no effort has also been made
by the respondents to recover the amount
after retirement of the petitioner.

21. In view of above, this court is of
the considered view that the amount of
gratuity of the petitioner has wrongly and
illegally
been
forfeited
and
adjusted
towards the NPA Loan Accounts without
authority of law. Therefore the writ petition
is liable to be allowed.

22. The writ petition is allowed. The
impugned resolution dated 07.10.2013 is
hereby quashed so far as it relates to the
petitioner. The respondents are directed to
release and pay the amount of Gratuity of
Rs.6,17,905/- to the petitioner alongwith
interest @ 8% per annum w.e.f. the date of
retirement of petitioner till the date of
payment within a period of six weeks from
the date of production of a certified copy of
this order. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022)01ILR A1105
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Service Single No. 33425 of 2019

Anurag Mehrotra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anurag Mehrotra (In Person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Deepak Seth

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950Article
226-challenge
to-denial
of
incentive bonus-representation rejected
deliberately as no reason is given for
denying the said benefit to the petitionerIt is settled that the State Government
cannot issue executive instructions with
regard to the field already occupied by the
G.P.F. Rules of 1985 issued under Article
309 of the Constitution of India, it also
cannot modify the said rules by an
executive order-no power left in the State
Government to withdraw or repeal the
said bonus in exercise of its executive
power-In exercise of power under Rule
11(1) of G.P.F. Rules of 1985 the State
Government
cannot
withdraw
the
incentive bonus required to be given
under Rule 12 of the G.P.F. Rules of 1985Therefore the said executive order is
declared to be ultra-vires and is set aside.
(Para 1 to 16)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. A.K Bhatnagar & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors. (1991)
1 SCC 544