Employee's Promotion Restored Post Acquittal Of Criminal Charges; Punjab High Court Orders Compensation For Delayed Gratuity
Pranav Kumar
17 Oct 2024 5:37 PM IST
High Court of Punjab and Haryana: Justice Namit Kumar ruled in favor of Tilok Kumar, granting him notional promotion and interest on delayed retiral dues. The court held that the petitioner was unfairly denied promotion due to pending charges and criminal proceedings, which were later resolved in his favor. Moreover, the court concluded that the significant delay in releasing his retiral dues justified the grant of interest.
Background
Tilok Kumar joined Markfed as a Field Sub Inspector in 1975 and retired as a Field Officer in 2012. His claim for promotion to Senior Branch Officer in 2008 was not considered due to two pending charge-sheets and a criminal case. However, both charge-sheets were dropped—one in 2012 and the other in 2020—and he was acquitted of the criminal charges in 2014. His retiral dues were delayed until 2020.
Arguments
Kumar argued that his juniors were promoted in 2008, but his promotion was stalled due to the unresolved charges and criminal case. Since the charges were withdrawn and he was acquitted, he was entitled to notional promotion from the date his juniors were promoted. He also sought interest on his delayed retiral dues, which were released eight years after his retirement. Conversely, Markfed contended that his promotion claim was not valid post-retirement, and the retiral dues were delayed because of pending disciplinary proceedings, which were resolved in 2020. They argued that Kumar was not entitled to further relief.
Reasoning
Firstly, the court recognized that the petitioner had a legitimate right to be considered for promotion during his service. The Supreme Court, in C.O. Arumurgam v. State of Tamil Nadu and Union of India v. Sangram Keshari Nayak, had established that every government employee has the right to be considered for promotion. Although charges were pending against Kumar, once they were cleared, his right to promotion was revived. The court emphasized that his mere retirement did not extinguish his right to be considered for promotion. His juniors were promoted in 2008, and had it not been for the pending proceedings, Kumar would have been promoted too. Thus, the court held that he was entitled to notional promotion from 2008.
Secondly, on the issue of delayed retiral dues, the court noted that once the charges were cleared, Kumar was entitled to timely payment of his retirement benefits. Referring to A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab, the court held that when there is unjustified delay in releasing retiral dues, the employee is entitled to interest on the delayed amount. The court observed that Kumar's dues were paid eight years after his retirement without valid justification for the delay. Therefore, Kumar was awarded interest at 6% per annum from October 2012 (three months after his retirement) until the actual date of payment. The court rejected Markfed's argument that they were justified in withholding his dues due to pending proceedings. The delay, once the charges were dropped and he was acquitted, was unreasonable and unjustifiable. Thus, the court directed Markfed to grant Kumar notional promotion to Senior Branch Officer from September 2008 and awarded 6% interest on the delayed retiral dues, payable within three months.
2024:PHHC:134069
Decided on: 14-10-2024
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Shiv Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Rishabh Gupta
