Jharkhand High Court
Dr. B.N. Pandeya Son Of Late Lalanji ... vs Ranchi University on 5 April, 2022
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 662 of 2008
Dr. B.N. Pandeya son of late Lalanji Pandeya Resident of Lohardaga
P.O. & P.S. and Dist. Lohardaga ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Ranchi University, Ranchi through its Vice Chancellor
2. The Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
---
22/05.04.2022 Heard Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
(i) For issuance of direction upon the respondents to pass appropriate order on the claim of the petitioner for payment of retiral dues amounting to Rs. 2,44,874/-
calculated by the petitioner and payable to him on various accounts such as arrears on difference in Pay Revision, Group Insurance, Leave Encashment deferred D.A.
(ii) To hold and declare that the action of the respondents in deducting the amount of Rs. 57,400/- on account of penal rent from the retiral dues of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary in as much as the said recovery of the penal rent was dropped by the Order of the then Vice Chancellor vide order dated 19.10.95 but in spite of that said amount has been deducted and retiral dues has been paid to the petitioner after deducting the same.
(iii) To hold and declare that the action of the respondents in harassing the petitioner for almost 17 years after his retirement is vitiated by malafide and thus the petitioner is entitled to heavy cost and exemplary interest on his dues.
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had moved this court earlier in CWJC No. 898 of 1991 for payment of his retiral benefits and the writ application was disposed of by the direction as contained in paragraph 58 and 59 of the final order dated 20.12.1991.
58. This application is, therefore, disposed of with the following directions (A) The Standing Advisory Committee of the University shall take a final decision within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment as to whether the option made by the petitioner on 20th March, 1991 should be accepted or not.
2The standing Advisory Committee may take into consideration all relevant materials on arriving at its decision.
(B) The Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University is hereby directed to send a letter of request to the Accountant General, Bihar, Ranchi for deputing an Auditor for the purpose of scrutinizing the accounts which should be completed within three weeks from the date of his deputation by the Accountant General, Bihar.
The Auditor may finalise the accounts provisionally both on the basis that the petitioner had opted for the pension scheme and for the Contributory Provident fund scheme (as mentioned in the Vice-Chancellor letter dated 21.3.1991).
(C) The petitioner would be entitled to the interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum on his actual dues with effect from 1st October, 1990 i.e. two months after his retirement. In calculating the amount of interest, the payment of a sum of Rs. 1,00000/- made to the petitioner by the University in terms of the Court's order dated 7.5.1991 should be taken into consideration.
(D) It is also made clear that necessary calculation should be made by the Auditor on the basis that the petitioner has become entitled to grant of UGC scale of pay by the State of Bihar.
(E) The Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi University shall also send a letter of request to the concerned Ministry of the State of Bihar within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for grant of formal sanction with regard to the UGC scale of pay to the petitioner.
(F) He shall further within one week from the date of finalisation of the accounts by the Auditor deputed by the Accountant General Bihar, Ranchi shall send a letter of request to the State for release of requisite funds so as to enable the University to pay the lawful dues of the petitioner and it is expected that the State shall release the requisite funds within one month from the date of receipt of the letter of request.
(G) The University may proceed as against the petitioner, in accordance with law, for the purpose of realization of any rent/penal rent against him for his occupation of the quarter.
However, it is made clear that no deduction of any amount will be made from the pension and gratuity payable to the petitioner: if any. Any payment which is to be made by the University to the petitioner directly, the same should be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of finalisation of the accounts.
(H) However, the University need not to make any payment to the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court dated 20.08.1991 till the matter is finalised.
59. Before parting with this case, it may be mentioned that normally this Court takes a serious view in a case of non- payment of retiral benefits to its employees by the employer within a reasonable time. In such cases, the normal practice of this Court is to award interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum but in this case, the petitioner has also not acted in a manner befitting the office of the Principal.
3He, as noticed hereinbefore, kept with him his original Service Book for a long time and made entries therein even after his retirement. He had no authority to do so. The petitioner had also occupied the quarter of the Principal for a long time after his retirement and in this view of matter, I have awarded interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum only."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the calculation of the remaining amount to be paid has been annexed at page No. 74 of the writ petition which is dated 12.04.2006. He submits that the interest on the remaining amount has also been claimed in view of para 58(c) which provided that the petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum on his actual dues w.e.f. 01.10.1990 i.e. two months after his retirement. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid amount being payable and having not been paid, a fresh writ petition has been filed and on the basis of calculation of the petitioner the retiral dues being Rs. 2,44,874/- which is payable under the heads, such as arrears on difference in pay revision, group insurance, leave encashment, deferred D.A. The further grievance of the petitioner is an amount of Rs. 57,400/- has been deducted on account of penal rent, although the said recovery was dropped by the then vice chancellor vide order dated 19.10.1995 which is apparent from letter contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer and has referred to the paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit of the respondents dated 13.02.2009 to give the entire calculation and it has also been stated that remaining amount of Rs. 19,439/- was paid to the petitioner vide cheque dated 22.07.2006. The details of the entire amount paid to the petitioner and the deduction of the penal rent has also been reflected in the said paragraph. Learned counsel has also referred to the audit objection which has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-4 to the writ petition which is dated 01.06.2005 and submits that the auditor has raised an objection that the Vice Chancellor had no authority to waive penal rent of the petitioner.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that in the earlier round of litigation in CWJC No. 898 of 1991 (R) 4 (Annexure-1) disposed of on 20.12.1991 specific direction was issued regarding entitlement of the petitioner for interest @ 10 % per annum on his actual dues w.e.f. 01.10.1990 i.e. two months after his retirement with a rider that in calculating the amount of interest, the payment of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- made to the petitioner by the University in terms of the court's order dated 07.05.1991 would be taken into consideration.
8. Upon perusal of the dues which has been projected by the petitioner in his calculation as contained in page No. 74 and 75 of the writ petition, it is apparent that no calculation has been projected in terms of aforesaid order passed by the writ court on 20.12.1991 which provided that the payment of a sum of Rs. 1,00000/- made to the petitioner by the University in terms of the Court's order dated 7.5.1991 should be taken into consideration. From perusal of the counter affidavit, it appears that as per the case of the Respondents, an excess amount has been shown to have been paid. It is also important to note that the calculation at page no. 74 and 75 of the writ petition is dated 12.04.2006 and the counter affidavit shows last payment by cheque dated 22.07.2006 and projects excess payment. The comparison of the claim of the petitioner and payment made by the respondents, projects that the basic claim as well as payment made were under the same heads and the petitioner additionally claimed interest but the calculation of interest does not project any adjustment of Rs. 1 lakh paid under interim orders. Thus, calculation made in page 74 and 75 is apparently not in terms of the order passed in the earlier round of writ proceedings. This aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon being pointed out by this court. In view of the aforesaid findings, no mandamus for payment as prayed for by the petitioner on the basis of calculation made by the petitioner can be issued by this court.
9. Other grievance of the petitioner is with regard to adjustment of penal rent of Rs. 57,400/- and specific case is that the Vice chancellor vide order dated 19.10.1995 has waived that amount and in support of the same the counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-7. This court finds that an audit objection was raised on 01/06/2005 and as per the audit objection, Vice Chancellor has not been authorized 5 under any Rule of the University to write off or drop any recoverable amount and the calculation of the recoverable penal rent has been mentioned in the audit objection himself. Learned counsel for the petitioner has neither brought anything on record, nor has advanced any argument in support of power of the Vice Chancellor to waive any recoverable amount although the petitioner has himself annexed the audit objection wherein the calculation of recoverable penal amount has been shown to be Rs. 54,400/- (the amount of penal rent), which the petitioner in the prayer of the writ petition has challenged its deduction.
10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in deducting the penal rent of Rs. 57,400/- from the arrears of salary etc. inspite of the so-called waiver of the penal rent by the vice chancellor vide order dated 19.10.1995. The communication dated 19.10.1995 is on record at annexure-7 which is a communication by the Registrar of Ranchi University mentioning as follows: -
"Further the matter of penal rent has been dropped as per order of V.C."
11. The petitioner having not been able to satisfy this court on the power of the vice-chancellor to waive the penal rent, the waiver of penal rent as mentioned in communication dated 19.10.1995 (annexure-7) is of no help to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner to declare the action of the respondents in deducting the amount of Rs. 57,400/- on account of penal rent as illegal, is devoid of any merit and hence rejected.
12. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, there is no merits in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit