Subhash Chander Gupta v. Union Of India And Others

Birbal Nath, Member:— The applicant joined the Railway as an Electrical Chargeman on 4th August, 1975. In April, 1976, he was transferred from Kanpur to Ghaziabad under the Delhi Divisional Railway Manager. The applicant served the Railways for less than 7 years i.e from 4th August, 1975 to 21st 3uly 1982 as he resigned from service on 10th July, 1982 giving one month's notice. Since he was not intimated if his resignation had been accepted or otherwise, he gave a notice under Section 80 CPC on 12.9.1984 and demanded payment of the following amounts lying with the Railways.

(a) Society Under Pass Book No. 843446 Rs. 100/- (b) Provident Fund under Account No. 280981 Rs. 3431.00 (c) Insurance of the period from 9/77 to 21.7.1982 Rs. 370.00 (d) Gratuity for the period from 4.7.1975 to 21.7.1982 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1974 Rs. 4100.00

2. Since his resignation was not accepted despite request and his dues were not realised, he filed civil writ petition No. 2111 in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in August, 1985. This writ petition has been transferred to the Tribunal by virtue of operation of Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

3. In the writ petition, he claimed his dues with 12 per cent interest per annum as laid down by the Supreme Court in the State of Kerala v. M. Padmonabhan Nair, 1985 ALT 303. It was only in September, 1984, when the applicant issued a notice under Section 80 CPC to the Railways that the Railway, Administration took cognizance of the case. Even in December, 1984, he pressed the Railways to intimate whether his resignation accepted (Annexure P/6).

4. On behalf of the respondents, it was admitted that the following amounts were due to the applicant:

(a) Security under pass book No. 843446 Rs. 100.00

(b) Provident Fund under Account No. 280981 Rs. 2796.00 (c) Insurance for the period from 9/77 to 21.7.1982 Rs. 400.00

5. However, it was averred that under the Provident Fund Rules, if any employee joins a new post under the State Government or Corporation, owned or controlled by the Government, his provident fund has to be transferred to that Government, Corporation or Organisation. It is not paid directly to the employees as it is essentially a retirement benefit.

6. In the rejoinder, the applicant denied that there was any Rule under the Provident Fund Rules which prohibits payment of dues directly to the petitioners and he pressed that he should be paid an amount of Rs. 4100/- under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as gratuity alongwith interest thereon for the period from 4.6.1976 to 21.7.1982

7. Documents have been perused and arguments advanced on behalf of the parties have been heard.

8. So far as the provident fund is concerned, an amount of Rs. 2796/- is available. Learned Counsel for the respondents has produced Rule 1339(2)(ii) of the State Railway Provident Fund Rules under the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. J. The same reads thus;

“If he is transferred to a post under a State Government, the amount of his subscriptions together with interest thereon shall be transferred with the consent of that Government, to his account in the Provident Fund administered by the Government. The Government contribution, if any, together with the interest thereon shall be resumed to the Railway revenues or transferred to the State Government according as the proportion liability for retirement benefits in respect of Railway service as mutually agreed to be borne by the Government or State Government.”

9. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 2796/- must have earnen interest between 10 to 12 per cent per annum as admissible under the instructions on the subject. This amount alongwith interest accrued thereon should be transferred to the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, within three months positively, Pending such a transfer, the respondents shall br liable to pay to the applicant further interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

10. It is clear that there is no dispute regarding the applicant's security, provident fund and insurance dues. The Railways are prepared to pay these to the applicant except that it is their stand that the provident fund will be transferred to the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, where the applicant is at present working. In view of the facts admitted, it is directed that the applicant will be paid his security and insurance money with immediate effect and in case of any delay beyond one month, the Railways shall be liable to pay him interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum for the period in which the amount is kept pending.

11. The only issue of contention is payment of gratuity to the applicant under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the Railways are industrial establishment and they are bound to make payment of Rs. 4100/- to the applicant by way of gratuity. This plea of the applicant was resisted by the learned Counsel for the respondents on the ground that the Railways have their own Gratuity Rules and the Payment of the Gratuity Act is not applicable to the Railway employees. It is seen that the Railways have their own Gratuity Rules which are applicable both for terminal purposes as well as death-cum-retirement benefit purposes. In the presence of these specific rules, the Railways are not governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Under paragraph 623 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950, a railway servant who has completed less than ten years qualifying service is entitled to only a gratuity. Such Railway employees are entitled to half a month's emoluments as gratuity for every six months period of qualifying service completed. Normally, the applicant, who has put in nearly seven years of qualifying service, should be entitled to gratuity equal to his 3½ months emoluments. However paragraph, 311 of the said Rules deals with those cases where employees resign from service. According to this paragraph, no pensionary benefit (op compassionate grants (s) and/or allowances) may be granted to a Railway servant who resigns from service. Since the applicant had resigned his post, his claim for gratuity is not sustainable.

12. In view of the foregoing, the application succeeds in regard to payment of security, insurance and provident fund at the rates as mentioned above. The payment of gratuity cannot be ordered in favour of the applicant in view of extant rules on the subject.

No order as to cost

13. Petition partly allowed.