Calcutta High Court
Sushil K. Sarkar vs Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, ... on 19 August, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1999)1CALLT232(HC), [1999(82)FLR331]
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: Satyabrata Sinha
JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J.
1. The petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs :--
"(A) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner after 31.8.94 and to finalise the financial settlement including the voluntary reUrement benefit as per Scheme of March, 1995;
(B) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the excess benefit of Rs.100/- from month of December, 1993 to August. 1994 first and then upto date;
(C) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the gratuity Provident fund and other benefits with the Scheme of March 1995 and allow the petitioner to stay in the quarter till May, 1997;
(D) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to get the chance of voluntary retirement benefit as per Scheme of March 1995;
(E) A Writ of and/or in the nature of certlorari commanding the respondents to transmit all the papers and documents to this Hon'ble Court within the date fixed by this Hon'ble Court and consider all applications;"
The petitioner has resignation voluntarily
2. The petitioner was directed to be released with effect from 31.7.94 by an order dated 27.6.94, but again by an order dated 31.8.94, he was released from the services of the respondent company with effect from 31.8.94. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 3,51,853.50P., had been paid to the petitioner. A further sum of Rs. 12,000/- has also been paid to the petitioner.
3. Mr. Malty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits with reference to paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-reply that in the meantime, the petitioner had withdrawn his offer of voluntary retirement by a letter dated 23.5.94. It Is stated by Mr. Maity, that a copy of the said letter was annexed to an application for grant of an appropriate order which is not on record. The stand taken in the affidavit-in-reply evidently appears to be by way of after thought. Had the petitioner withdrawn his offer of voluntary retirement in terms of scheme framed by the respondent corporation, prayers in the writ application would have been otherwise. in this view of the matter, having accepted the amount payable under the voluntary retirement scheme, the petitioner is estopped and precluded from questioning the acceptance of his aforementioned offer of voluntary retirement. However, it appears from annexure 'R' to the application for appropriate order which is a letter dated 24/28.4.97, it appears that one Mr. A.K. Dalai, the Assistant General Manager, Finance, has written to the petitioner to the following effect :
" ... in order to enable us to settle the outstanding payment relating to gratuity and Providend Fund, the following action should be taken by Shri Sarkar.
(a) He should vacate the quarter forthwith and the dues certificate should be produced to our Rourkela Unit to enable them release of gratuity amount after recovery of outstanding dues.
(b) The court case should be withdrawn.
(c) for settlement of provident fund dues, necessary application in the prescribed form may be made by Shri Sarkar and the same may be routed through Rourkela unit...."
The attitude on the part of the respondent's afore mentioned-officer in asking the petitioner to withdraw the case before the amount of gratuity and provident fund would be paid to him cannot be appreciated. It in fact amounts to contempt of this curt. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited is a State within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of india. Its officers are expected to behave in the manner which Is conducive of becoming an officer of a State. The petitioner has filed a writ application, the same can be fought out in court of law; but it was wholly improper on the part of the said Sri A.K. Dalai who asked the petitioner to withdraw the application so as to enable him to obtain payments relating to gratuity and provident fund.
4. Mr. Lahiri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submits that before a person can be paid the amount of provident fund, he should file an application therefor. As regards payment of gratuity, Mr. Lahirl submits that in terms of service rules, the petitioner ought to have vacated the quarter but without doing so he has obtained an order of injunction. So far as the question of vacation of quarter by the petitioner is concerned, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the respondent corporation is entitled to take such steps for his eviction as is permissible in law. Mr. Malty, learned counsel, relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Violet Issaac and Others v, Union of india and Others reported in 1991 SCC (L & S) 551 equivalent to , wherein the apex court directed, "It has been brought to our notice on behalf of the respondent Railway administration that the appellants have been occupying the Railway quarter which had been allotted to late Issac Alfred, even though they are not entitled to occupy the same. On behalf of the appellants. It was urged that since they had not been paid any dues by the Railway administration they were not in a position to vacate the premises. The Railway administration is free to evict them in accordance with the Rules, only after arrears of family pension are paid to Mrs. Violet Issac. The Railway administration will charge rent from the appellants at the rate on which the quarter had been let out to the deceased Railway employee."
5. It is true that in certain cases, the court in exercise of its equitable Jurisdiction may Issue such direction but keeping in view the petitioner's conduct as noticed hereinbefore, I am not inclined to Issue such direction as the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has not laid down a law within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of india. Relief granted to a party will very from the facts and circumstances of each case.
6. In this view of the matter, this application is disposed of with the following directions :--
(1) The entire amount of gratuity shall be paid to the petitioner within one month from date.
(2) The amount of provident fund,payable to the petitioner shall be paid within one month from his date of filing of application therefor, If not already filed. It is stated by Mr. Malty, learned counsel that such an application has been filed but according to Mr. Lahiri, learned counsel, no such application is available on the records of the company. A copy of such application may be handed over to Mr. Lahiri by tomorrow.
(3) The amount payable to the petitioner by way of provident fund and gratuity, shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
(4) The respondents shall be entitled to take all steps for eviction of the petitioner from the quarter in question. Mr. Mondal, however, on instruction, states that his client shall vacate the quarter by 31st August, 1998. It will be open to the respondents to recover such rent which might have become payable by the petitioner to the respondent corporation.
(5) The petitioner shall be entitled to file a suit or take recourse to such other remedies as regards his other dues claimed by him as this court has no Jurisdiction to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner as such claims are denied and disputed by the respondents.
(6) There will be no order as to costs.
(7) Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for urgently, may be given on priority basis.
7. Application disposed of