Mere pendency of an FIR, without presentation of a challan, is no ground to withhold an employee’s gratuity, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled while directing the Punjab Government to pay interest on the delayed release of a policeman’s gratuity.The direction came as Justice Namit Kumar held that retirement benefits were a valuable statutory right and not a matter of grace.“Retirement benefits are not in the nature of a bounty but constitute a valuable statutory right, and an employee cannot be deprived thereof, except in accordance with law,” the court ruled.Justice Namit Kumar’s Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the petitioner retired as an Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) on February 28, 2011.His gratuity of Rs 5,50,869 was withheld owing to the pendency of an FIR registered on February 19, 2007, for wrongful restraint and other offences under Sections 323, 341 and 368 IPC at Phase 8 police station in Mohali.After the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mohali, accepted the cancellation report on July 1, 2014, the gratuity was sanctioned on October 13, 2014, and released on January 1, 2015.Seeking interest on the delayed payment, the petitioner argued that the gratuity became payable after his retirement, but it was released nearly four years later. He further submitted that the cancellation report in the FIR had already been filed on July 12, 2007, well before his retirement, though it was accepted by the trial court only on July 1, 2014, entitling him to interest on the delayed payment.Opposing the petition, the State contended that gratuity could not be released during the pendency of the criminal case. After the cancellation report was accepted, the amount was sanctioned on October 13, 2014, and paid on January 1, 2015, leaving no undue delay thereafter.After examining the record, Justice Namit Kumar noted that the relevant facts were undisputed and observed that the gratuity had been withheld solely because of the FIR registered against the petitioner. The Court further noted that the cancellation report had already been filed before the petitioner’s retirement.“The mere pendency of FIR in the absence of framing of charges against the accused person, is no basis for withholding the retirement dues of an employee. Surprisingly, in the present case, the cancellation report was filed in the Court on July 12, 2007, which was accepted on July 1, 2014, meaning thereby on the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e. on February 28, 2011, the cancellation report had already been filed in the Court. Therefore, in such circumstances, there was neither any legal impediment nor any justification to withhold the gratuity amount of the petitioner,” Justice Kumar asserted.The Court also relied on precedents holding that criminal proceedings were treated as having commenced only when a challan/charge-sheet was presented before the criminal court, and mere registration or pendency of an FIR did not authorise the employer to withhold retirement benefits.Allowing the writ petition, the High Court directed the respondents to pay interest at 6 per cent per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity from May 1, 2011, to January 1, 2015, and to complete the exercise within two months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.