JARNAIL SINGH versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS.

JARNAIL SINGH versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS.

'Pension' as defined in Rule 3(1)(o) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, includes gratuity unless the term is used in contradistinction to gratuity. Therefore, Rule 9 empowered the withholding of gratuity even prior to its amendment in 1991, the amendment being clarificatory.

Parties
Appellant: Jarnail Singh; Respondents: Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 December 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Pension, Retirement Benefits, Gratuity, Disciplinary Proceedings
Service Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Pension Retirement Benefits Gratuity Disciplinary Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jarnail Singh

Appellant

Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prior to 1991 Amendment, payment of gratuity could be withheld as punishment for recovery of loss sustained to government under Rule 9 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972

Ratio Decidendi

'Pension' as defined in Rule 3(1)(o) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, includes gratuity unless the term is used in contradistinction to gratuity. Therefore, Rule 9 empowered the withholding of gratuity even prior to its amendment in 1991, the amendment being clarificatory.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs