Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sh. Gurdial Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 24 April, 2002
Author: Amar Dutt
Bench: Amar Dutt
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J.
1. By this order, we propose to dispose of two connected Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4088 and 4089 of 2002 as common question of law and fact are involved therein. The facts have, however, been extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 4088 of 2002.
2. Gurdial Singh Saini, who retired as Deputy Manager, Punjab Cooperative Bank Limited, through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release his gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral benefits with interest @ 24% w.e.f. the date of his retirement.
3. Brief facts of the case reveal that petitioner was allotted a bank quarter No. 320, Sector 3-A,Chandigarh during his service of the Bank. Petitioner retired as Deputy Manager from the Punjab Cooperative Bank Limited, Chandigarh on March 31, 1996. It appears that the time to vacate the official accommodation in the case of petitioner was extended and he was asked to vacate the same during the said period, i.e., extended period. He, however, made a representation for release of his leave encashment and gratuity. The same were not released inasmuch as the petitioner did not vacate the official accommodation. The Bank was constrained to file a civil suit for possession of the bank quarter and for recovery of arrears of licence fee at the rate of 20 times on April 1, 1997. The respondent Bank also filed reference under Section 55 and 56 of the Cooperative Societies Act seeking arbitration in the matter which was decided against the petitioner. He filed an appeal and revision against the orders aforesaid which were dismissed. Meanwhile, suit filed by the Bank was also decreed allowing recovery of licence fee @ its 20 times. It is only on May 10, 2001 that petitioner handed over the possession of quarter to the Bank, He received a notice from the Bank for payment of Rs. 2,53,237/- as arrears of rent on August 24, 2001.
4. Challenge in CWP No. 4089 of 2002 filed by the petitioner is to orders passed by the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation Punjab dated October 10, 2000, Annexure P-4 dismissing the revision of petitioner in limine against order dated April 26, 2000,An-nexure P-3 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies as also order passed in appeal preferred by the petitioner as also award given by the Arbitrator under Sections 55/56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 for recovery of penal rent from the petitioner.
5. There is no need at all to deal with the challenge to orders that have been impugned in OWP No. 4089 of 2002 as even if these orders may be incorrect, in view of contention raised by learned counsel, that reference under Sections 55/56 was not maintainable, the decree rendered by the Civil Court against him still stands and orders that have been passed in two matters, i.e., arbitration award and Civil Court decree, are for the same relief that has been granted to the respondent Bank.
6. It is quite clear from reading of petition and submissions made by counsel representing the petitioner that he has not cleared the arrears of rent/licence fee as ordered by the Civil Court. Petitioner, in our view, is not entitled to any relief as he has unauthorisedly occupied the official accommodation for a long time after his retirement. He vacated it only after he lost on all fronts, be it in arbitration proceedings or the Civil Court. In similar circumstances in Municipal Corporation, Amritsar v. Jagdamba Dutt, LPA No. 885 of 1992 decided on April 19, 2002 in which one of us (V.K.Bali, J.) was member, it was held as under; -
"From the summary of case law, as has been discussed above, it has, thus, to be held that High Court interferes under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of fundamental rights and any other right but it is not necessary to issue writs, orders or directions in every case where it may find infringement of a fundamental right or any legal right. Despite, thus, there being a complete case, i.e., showing infringement of a right of a citizen guaranteed to him under the Statute, the Court can still refuse to issue a writ order or direction. Naturally, refusal to issue a writ in such an event has to be judicial and reasonable....Reverting to the facts of the present case, we can not help but return a firm finding that the petitioner herein has taken undue advantage of the service benefits that were admissible to him at one stage. Having occupied a quarter allotted to him by the employer, he was duty bound to restore its possession immediately or after a couple of months when he superannuated. Quite to the contrary he is treating the quarter allotted to him by his employer as his personal property. He has spent a considerable amount in not only renovating the quarter but making further construction thereon and is not even shy in openly proclaiming that he shall not vacate the same. For restoration of possession to the Municipal Corporation, he challenges the employer to vindicate its stand in appropriate proceedings that may take years but in so far as post retiral dues are concerned, he wants this court to immediately issue a writ of mandamus directing the employer to pay the same. His conduct, in our view, is most reprehensible and unbecoming of a good officer/official. Further, by his own act and conduct, he has put 'his employer to an immense loss which may be far more commensurate to his own dues. Surely, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief from us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India....Inasmuch as it is not known as to how much amount the employer owes to the petitioner towards post retiral benefits on three counts, referred to above, as also how much money shall be due that may be payable by the petitioner to his employer towards house rent/penalty, petitioner may approach an appropriate forum which may be civil suit as well, wherein the Municipal Corporation shall be well within its right to claim adjustment. In such an event, only residual, if any, shall be paid to the petitioner and nothing more. The appeals are allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/-."
7. In view of the discussion made above, these petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to ask for residual, if any. In other words, if the petitioner might feel his post retiral dues, which are stated to be only leave encashment and gratuity, may be more than the amount that he has to pay towards arrears of rent, he may seek his remedy before the Civil Court or any other appropriate forum.
Sd/- Amar Dutt, J.