Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8739 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rang Nath Pandey,Rahul Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Following orders were passed in the matter on 11.7.2019:-
"This petition has been filed with the allegation that petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed and victimised only because of ongoing matrimonial dispute and as some of her wife's relatives are highly placed officers in the department. It is stated that the petitioner's bonus, which was due and payable as per law was withheld on account of certain alleged non payment in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is asserted that without hearing the petitioner, an order was passed and even after the petitioner apprised that he has already deposited all such amount, the bonus is released to him with a stipulation that in case there is any order passed in criminal proceedings, the bonus shall be withheld. It is stated that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are absolutely independent proceedings for which the Court concerned has ample opportunity to pass order for recovery etc. and in the absence of an order by competent court the employer cannot deny payment of bonus.
Contention is that release of service benefits including bonus etc. cannot be withheld at the level of the authorities themselves without there being any order passed by the competent Court. Submission is that the direction contained in the order dated 3.5.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), impugned in the writ petition, therefore, is wholly without any authority of law.
Taking note of such contention, learned Standing Counsel was permitted to obtain instructions. The order records that the amount of bonus was withheld under some legal advice.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to call upon the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) to file his personal affidavit and explain as to under which authority of law he can withhold the bonus amount of petitioner, particularly when no order has been passed by any competent Court. Such a condition can not be imposed otherwise in the order as has been done herein. The required affidavit would be filed by the next date fixed.
Post as fresh on 25.7.2019."
An affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Tax, Meerut, has been filed stating that all amount due and payable to the petitioner has been released. It is also stated that the amount was earlier withheld on account of some opinion expressed by the District Government Counsel (Civil).
The action of the respondents in withholding the service benefits, on account of pendency of a matrimonial dispute, cannot be approved, inasmuch as, no such jurisdiction is shown to vest in the authority concerned for withholding such amount. It is only in furtherance of an order passed by a competent court that the employer can withhold any amount from the service benefit due and payable to the employee concerned. Nothing is brought on record to show that any such order was passed by a competent court for withholding petitioner's service benefits including bonus. It is apparently under some misconceived notion that the authorities have proceeded to obtain opinion and withheld petitioner's service benefits.
Since amount has now been paid, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the authorities concerned to act strictly in accordance with law and not to withhold petitioner's service benefits, except in accordance with law, keeping in view the observation made above.
It is clarified that a matrimonial dispute including the one under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is being contested by an employee, is not to be treated as a criminal case for withholding of service benefits.
The personal appearance of the officer is exempted.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Ranjeet Sahu