Punjab-Haryana High Court
Panjab University vs Dr. Iqbal Singh Dhillon on 30 July, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
LPA NO.1060 OF 2012 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1060 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 30.07.2012
Panjab University, Chandigarh and another ..... Appellants
Versus
Dr. Iqbal Singh Dhillon ..... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate,
for the appellants.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
This intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.05.2012 allowing the writ petition with a direction to the respondent-University, the appellant before us, to release the provident fund amount standing to the credit of the petitioner along with simple interest at 18% per annum. The writ Court has also awarded cost of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the petitioner-respondent.
The brief facts are that the writ petitioner served the respondent-University as the Director and Head of the Department, Youth Welfare for about 27 years from 1978 to 2005. During his tenure, it is not disputed that the petitioner drew advances from time to time from grants and subsidies put at the disposal of the petitioner for onward disbursement to affiliated colleges to bear expenses of holding youth festivals etc. There LPA NO.1060 OF 2012 (O&M) -2- were audit objections with respect to 33 advances and 25 subsidies that remained unadjusted and unaccounted in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner was served with several notices to reconcile the accounts and finalize the same by accounting for the advances made to him. It was his case that from time to time he had furnished proof of fund utilization, accounts adjustment and had submitted expenditure reports. When the petitioner retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.04.2005 the amount lying in his provident fund was withheld with a view to make deductions therefrom to satisfy the claims reflected in the audit objections. The alleged unadjusted advances span as far back as from 01.07.1981 onwards and up to 24.01.1996.
The petitioner's request for payment of provident fund dues was rejected citing Regulation 6 of the University Provident Fund Employees Regulations. The amount was denied through letter dated 08.09.2008 on the premise that till such time that the petitioner did not comply with audit requirements, he would not be paid the provident fund amount. The University apart from engaging in a long drawn out correspondence with the petitioner did nothing for over two decades to either reconcile the accounts or to take recourse to adjudicatory procedure for recovery of its alleged dues.
The learned Single Judge after a detailed examination of the matter has to our mind rightly come to the conclusion that non release of provident fund dues on alleged adjustments against liability which have not been determined by any adjudicatory process is untenable. It is well settled that amounts lying in a provident fund is the hard earned income of an LPA NO.1060 OF 2012 (O&M) -3- employee which normally cannot be touched with a bargepole. The University has acted irresponsibly and unlawfully in pocketing the provident fund dues of the petitioner for the last seven years which must certainly have caused untold harassment to the retiree. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the writ deserves to be allowed.
We would normally have held that simple interest at 18% per annum is on the higher side and may have reduced it but we refrain from doing so since we agree with the learned Single Judge of his reason assigned to decline damages as a separate head of claim in view of the award of interest at 18% per annum simple. We would add as a postscript that the 18% interest ordered would now include the component of damages for harrasment and non user of money legally due and illegally withheld for seven years long years and which still remain unpaid.
We find no merit in this appeal and dismiss it. However, on the request of Mr. Deepal Sibal, Advocate, we enlarge the time by 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order for compliance of the order.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 30.07.2012 JUDGE manju