Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Kedar Nath Sharma v. Union Of India - SECOND APPEAL No. 2041 of 1976 [2006] RD-AH 20321 (30 November 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 30.

Second Appeal No. 2041 of 1976.

Kedar Nath Sharma                Vs.    The Union of India.

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard Sri Pravin Kumar Misra holding brief of Sri Bharatji Agarwal for the appellant and Sri Lalji Sinha for the respondents.

This second appeal arises out of judgment in O.S. No. 220 of 1973 dated 22.8.1975 and the judgment dated 31.8.1976 in Civil Appeal No. 234 of 1975 by which the appellant's suit for recovery of Rs. 414.38 with interest, deducted from his 'gratuity' payable to him  on account of his negligence as railway employee was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad on 25.10.1969.  Both the courts below have held that 'pay' under Rule 309 of Manual of Railway Pension Rules includes 'gratuity'.  Rule 1236 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual provides that the Government can recover the loss of article or damages from the pensionery benefit.  

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once statutory rules have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India,   the Railway Establishment Manual or the Manual of Railway Pension Rules will not apply.

He has relied upon F.R. Jesuratnam Versus Union of India and others, 1990(Supp) Supreme Court Cases 640, in which it was held that if there is no legal provision empowering the authorities to forfeit the gratuity payable to an employee, the order passed by the Government forfeiting the gratuity payable to the appellant must be set aside.


In the present case  Rule 6(iii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal ) Rules, 1968 provide for recovery from the pay, of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government or Railway Administration by negligence or breach of orders.  The word 'Pay' has not been defined in the  Rules of 1968.    For this purpose, the Court can refer to the definition  of pay  under Rule 304 of Manual of Railways Pension Rules, which includes pensionery benefit and further includes 'gratuity'.  Rule 223 provide that a loss caused to the Government may be recovered from the pensionery  benefit.  

The Manual  of Railway Pension Rules may be relied upon for defining the 'pay', if the same is not defined under Rules of 1968, and since there is a legal basis for recovery of amount lost due to negligence of the plaintiff from his  gratuity, the judgment cannot be faulted.

The second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt. 30.11.2006.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.