9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from the gratuity amount of husband of the petitioner, who died in harness. The death of the husband of the petitioner had occurred on 27.12.2004 and recovery order has been passed after about two years from the death of her husband. There is no ambiguity that the amount payable under the head of gratuity is not even liable to be attached in execution of decree or order. It is evident that right to receive the payment of gratuity amount is protected right and it cannot be taken away by the employer. Moreover , in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court is of the opinion that the order for deduction of Rs.99,858/- from the gratuity amount was not sustainable in the eye of law and, as such, the writ petition stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 858/- from the gratuity amount , balance amount was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner after having come to know regarding deduction of Rs.99,858/- from the gratuity amount represented before Respondent no.4/ Dy. Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Patna praying therein to direct the concerned Officer to release the deducted amount. The petitioner in the present writ petitioner has annexed the said communication contained in Memo no.1984 dated 27.10.2006 as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda to the Treasury Officer, Nalanda for deducing the amount of Rs.99,858/- from the gratuity amount. The petitioner thereafter learnt on receipt of Memo No.7649 dated 19.10.2007 issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioner in support of his submission that no recovery was required to be made without affording any opportunity of hearing has referred to number of case law reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 857 (Ram Autar Agarwal Vs. Reserve Bank of India Anr.), 2010 (1) PLJR 113 (Ram Kumar Bharati Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board Ors and 2010 (1) PLJR 347 (Satyanarayan Lal Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board). It has further been argued that no deduction can be made from the amount of gratuity and in the present case, the recovery has been affected from the amount of due gratuity of her husband. Accordingly, it has been prayed to direct the Respondents to refund the deducted amount of Rs.99,858/- along with interest. Sri Himanshu Kumar, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remains that the recovery of Rs.99,858/- was directed to be made from the gratuity amount of husband of the petitioner, who died in harness. The death of the husband of the petitioner had occurred on 27.12.2004 and recovery order has been passed after about two years from the death of her husband . It is also not in dispute that before passing order for recovery, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and violating the principles of natural justice, the order for recovery was passed. So far as recovery from the amount of gratuity is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that recovery from the amount of gratuity was not permissible by the Respondents, particularly in view of statutory bar under Section 13 of the Payment of G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
