Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri V.P. Aggarwal vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 4 April, 2002
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J.
1. Petitioner who was working as Director (I&P) R.S.D. Project, Chandigarh, with the State of Punjab, retired from service on September 30, 1997. He has filed present writ petition with a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to release his pensionary benefits/gratuity etc. alongwith interest @ 24% per annum for the delayed period.
2. In the writ petition, it has been contended that at the time of his retirement on September 30, 1997, neither any departmental proceedings were pending against the petitioner for any kind of recovery nor any such amount was due against him. It has further been stated that the amount of pension, leave encashment and general provident fund has already been released to him. However, gratuity has not been paid to him till date. He further stated that as per the revised pay scale, amount of gratuity payable to him is Rs. 3,13,236/- and a prayer is made that the respondents be directed to release the same forthwith alongwith interest.
3. Upon notice, respondents have put up appearance and filed written statement wherein non payment of gratuity amount to the tune of Rs. 3,13,236/- is admitted. It has, however, been stated that the said amount has been adjusted against outstanding amount which was payable by the petitioner on account of miscellaneous advance and it is further stated that since the petitioner failed to vacate the house allotted to him and remained in unauthorised occupation since the date of his retirement, i.e., September 30, 1997, till April 7, 2000, amount of penal house rent is also due and payable by him.
4. Counsel for the parties heard.
5. Shri. Rakesh Garg, counsel for the petitioner has vehelemntly contended that when the petitioner retired no departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings were pending against him and as such it was incumbent upon the department to make payment of the gratuity amount at the time of his retirement. To strengthen his argument, he relied upon judgment of this Court in L.R. Dhawan v. State of Haryana, 1996(3) Services Cases Today 11. Counsel for the petitioner further stated that regarding payment of penal rent for the accommodation retained by the petitioner after his retirement, no order has yet been passed and as such department is not justified to adjust the amount of gratuity towards the alleged amount.
6. Sh. Vikas Cuccria, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing on behalf of the respondents, has controverted the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner. He has stated that at the time of retirement, in the accounts of the petitioner, amount of Rs. 4,98,797.50 paise was standing as miscellaneous advance against him and furthermore since the petitioner after his retirement remained in unauthorised occupation of the hose allotted to him, i.e. from October 1, 1997, to April 7, 2000, penal house rent for the said period has been assessed at Rs. 4,09,553/- and that amount is also required to be recorverd from the petitioner. He further submitted that in view of Rule 9.16 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, amount of gratuity due to the petitioner has been adjusted towards the amounts above mentioned and at present nothing is due to him. Rather Rs. 5,95,115/- are still recoverable from the petitioner.
7. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Petitioner retired on September 30, 1997 and at that time in his accounts, Rs. 4,98,797.50 paise were standing as miscellaneous advance payable/to be accounted for by him. Furthermore, after his retirement, the petitioner continued to occupy the house allotted to him during service till April 7, 2000 unauthorisedly. Respondents have thus, assessed penal rent for the said period amounting to Rs. 4,09,553/-which is also payable by the petitioner. No doubt amount of penal house rent was not due when the petitioner retired but miscellaneous advance of Rs. 4,98,797. 50 paise was standing against him and the respondents are justified to adjust the said amount payable to the petitioner towards gratuity, which was only Rs. 3,13,236/-.
8. The judgment in the case of L.R. Dhawan's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. In that case, when the petitioner retired from service, no enquiry or judicial proceedings were pending against him and the retiral benefits were not disbursed to him on the basts of some enquiry which was initiated much after his retirement. The facts of that case are different and ratio of the judgment in that case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case, when the petitioner retired, in his accounts miscellaneous advance which he was supposed to account for was still standing and the department has rightly adjusted the amount of gratuity against that amount in view of the provisions of rule 9.16 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, which reads as under:-
"9.16 Recovery and adjustment of Government dues:- (i) It shall be the duty of the Head Office to ascertain and assess Government dues payable by a Government due for retirement.
(2) The Government dues as ascertained and assessed by the Head of Office which retain outstanding till the date of retirement of the Government employee shall be adjusted against the amount of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity becoming payable. 3. The expression Government dues includes:-
a) Dues pertaining to Government accommodation including arrears of license fees, if any;
b) Dues other than pertaining to Government accommodation, namely, balance of House Building Advance or conveyance advance or any other advance, over payment of pay and allowances or leave salary and arrears of Income Tax deductible at source under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (42 of 1961)."
9. A bare reading of the above mentioned provisions clearly shows that adjustment of the gratuity amount by the respondents towards outstanding amounts is correct and does not call for any interference by this Court. No doubt, it is correct that an employee is entitled to get gratuity and other benefits at the time of his retirement but in the present case, conduct of the petitioner is such that he is not entitled to any relief on that account also. The petitioner has retired from a very responsible post and after his retirement on September 30, 1997, he continued, unauthorizedly, in possession of accommodation allotted to him during his service which he vacated only on April 7, 2000. Respondents have already assessed a huge amount more than the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner towards penal rent. Under these circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court, while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
10. In view of the reasoning given above, writ petition fails and the same is dis missed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.