Delhi District Court
Raghuvinder Singh Kalra vs Delhi Institute Of Tool Engineering on 29 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS NEHA MITTAL, ASCJ-JSCC-GJ,
NORTH -WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No.1490/2017
RAGHUVINDER SINGH KALRA
S/o Late Sh. Santokh Singh Kalra
R/o House Number 180
2nd Floor, Raja Garden
New Delhi-110015 ..... Plaintiff
Versus
DELHI SKILL AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
UNIVERSITY
Formerly Delhi Institute of Tool Engineering
Wazirpur Industrial Area
Delhi - 110052 .....Defendant
Date of Institution : 15.12.2017
Date of Reserving Order : 29.08.2024
Date of pronouncing Order : 29.08.2024
SUIT FOR RECOVERY.
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the present case as stated are that the plaintiff was working as an employee in the defendant organization namely Delhi Institute of Tool Engineering (now known as Delhi Skill And Entrepreneurship University) from 21.07.1978 to 31.08.2012. It is stated that the plaintiff was appointed as Assistant Manager (Production) vide memorandum dated 17.07.1978 and was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager on 07.01.1983 and to the post of Manager on 22.04.1993. It is further stated that on 31.08.2012, the plaintiff retired from his service and received his retirement dues i.e. Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2024.08.29 16:32:08 +0530 CS SCJ No.1490/2017 Page No.1/8 Raghuvinder Singh Kalra Vs. Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University gratuity, leave encashment as per prevailing rules of defendant. It is further stated that the salary of the plaintiff was fixed as per Assured Career Progression Scheme and after upgradation, under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme as per scheme dated 19.05.2009 as revealed in letter dated 30.09.2011. It is further stated that after almost two years of retirement, the defendant issued a letter dated 19.03.2014 demanding Rs.2,99,782/- from the plaintiff but it was never mentioned to him earlier at any point of time that the leave encashment of 105 days was recoverable from him. It is further stated that instead of paying his arrears under ACP/MACP scheme despite his representation dated 25.03.2014 and 19.04.2016, the defendant gave reply dated 25.05.2016 that there is still recovery of Rs.30,554/- against the plaintiff after adjusting the dues payable to the plaintiff. It is stated that the defendant is not eligible to recover the leave encashment from the plaintiff as the rules are prospective and not retrospective. It is stated that the plaintiff suffered a total loss of Rs.2,69,228/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of due to till date of actual realization. On 25.11.2017, the plaintiff has sent legal notice to the defendant for the payment to the plaintiff but they refused to pay the plaintiff his dues also. Hence, the present suit has been filed. 1.2 It is prayed that the suit may please be decreed and the defendant be directed to pay the plaintiff Rs.2,69,228/-
alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of due till date of actual realization.
2. In its written statement, the defendant stated that the plaintiff had availed 105 earned leaves during his service period Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2024.08.29 16:32:18 +0530 CS SCJ No.1490/2017 Page No.2/8 Raghuvinder Singh Kalra Vs. Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University and also claimed 300 days E.L. encashment at the time of retirement whereas, as per the Leave Rules, any employee is entitled to encashment of not more than 300 days E.L. in his whole service. It is further stated that the issue of encashment of leaves was discussed in the 10 th Governing Council Meeting held on 22.11.2012 and the said matter was sent to the Finance Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi for their advise who gave the following opinion :-
"All grantee Institutions/autonomous bodies which receive more than fifty percent of their recurring expenditure in the form of grants-in-aid, shall formulate terms and conditions of service of their employees which are, by and large, not higher than those applicable to similar categories of employees in government."
2.1 It is stated that the aforesaid opinion of the Finance Department was duly adopted by the Governing Council of the defendant. It is further stated that the ACP/MACP arrears of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.2,69,228/- stands paid after adjustment of the excess payment on account of 105 days EL encashment as per the specific undertaking given by the plaintiff at the time of retirement. All other averments made in the plaint have been denied and it is prayed that the present suit be dismissed.
3. Replication has been filed by the plaintiff to the written statement filed by the defendant. It is stated that as per the Leave Encashment Rules approved at the 57th General Meeting of the Governing Council held on 21.11.1998, the earned leaves already encashed to the employees during service period may not be counted at the time of retirement. It is further stated that the defendant was governed by its Governing Council and not by Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2024.08.29 16:32:27 +0530 CS SCJ No.1490/2017 Page No.3/8 Raghuvinder Singh Kalra Vs. Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University CCS Rules till the retirement of the plaintiff. All the averments made in the written statements have been denied and those made in the plaint have been reiterated.
4. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 20.04.2019 :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of Rs.2,69,228/-, as prayed for? (OPP)
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest over the said amount? If yes, at what rate and for what period? (OPP).
3. Relief
5. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. He has relied upon the following documents :-
(i) Certificate of registration of Societies Act as Ex. AD3;
(ii) Memorandum dt. 17.07.1978 as Ex. AD2;
(iii) Amended certificate of registration society as Ex.
AD4;
(iv) Minutes of agenda item no. 9, 57 GC meeting held on 21.11.1998 as Ex. AD7;
(v) Order dt. 30.09.2011 as Ex. AD9;
(vi) Order dt. 23.07.2012 as Ex. AD10;
(vii) Order dt. 19.03.2014 as Ex. AD11;
(viii) RTI information as Ex. AD15;
(ix) Order dt. 23.05.2016 as Ex. AD16;
(x) Order dt. 23.08.2016 as Ex. AD19;
(xi) Legal notice dt. 24.10.2017 as Ex. AD20;
(xii) Minutes of Governing Council Meeting dt. 21.11.1998 as Ex. AD26 (colly). Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2024.08.29 16:32:36 +0530 CS SCJ No.1490/2017 Page No.4/8 Raghuvinder Singh Kalra Vs. Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University PW-1 has been cross examined by the counsel for the defendant.
6. Thereafter, P.E. was closed by counsel for plaintiff vide order dated 16.11.2019.
7. Defendant examined himself as DW-1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. He has relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Finance (Accounts) Dept. noting dated 26.03.2013 Ex.DW1/1;
(ii) ELFA Audit Report dated 31.10.2013 Ex.DW1/2;
(iii) Copy of Agenda Notes for the 11 th Meeting of the Governing Council of Delhi Institute of Tool Engineering MARK DW 1/3 (07 pages), DW-1 has been duly cross examined by the counsel for the plaintiff.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for both the parties and perused the record.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS Issue no.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of Rs.2,69,228/-, as prayed for? (OPP)
9. The burden to prove the aforesaid issue is upon the plaintiff.
10. It has been argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of ACP/MACP arrears and that the defendant cannot be allowed to seek the refund of the EL encashment on account of change of rules/policy after his Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2024.08.29 16:32:44 +0530 CS SCJ No.1490/2017 Page No.5/8 Raghuvinder Singh Kalra Vs. Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University retirement. It is further argued that the plaintiff has even paid income tax on the amount received by him on account of leave encashment. On the other hand, counsel for defendant has argued that the plaintiff is bound by the policy framed by the defendant. It is further stated that the defendant has issued office order bearing no. Ref.F.2(132)/Admn/DITE/C-I/781-787 dated 23- 24.12.2013 stating that the earned leaves already encashed under any scheme will be considered while computing the maximum ceiling of encashment of earned leaves as per Rule 39 of CCS Leave Rules.
11. The present case has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of ACP/MACP arrears to the tune of Rs.2,69,228/-. The fact that the said amount was payable to the plaintiff towards ACP/MACP arrears has been admitted by the defendant in its written statement as well as para 13 of evidence affidavit Ex.DW- 1/A. The stand of the defendant is that the said amount has been adjusted against the excess payment made to the plaintiff on account of 105 earned leaves encashed by him during his service. There is no dispute between the parties that any amount, if found due from the plaintiff towards the defendant after his retirement, can be adjusted against any future payments due towards the plaintiff. The undertaking to this effect Ex.AD-27 has been admitted by the plaintiff during admission/denial of documents conducted on 20.04.2019. Rather, the objection of the plaintiff is that he cannot be prejudiced by the subsequent change in Leave Encashment Rules after his retirement. Thus, the question before this court is whether the defendant is entitled to seek refund of the alleged excess payment made to the plaintiff towards 105 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2024.08.29 16:32:53 +0530 CS SCJ No.1490/2017 Page No.6/8 Raghuvinder Singh Kalra Vs. Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University days earned leaves encashed by him during his service. The onus to prove the same rests upon the defendant.
12. The defendant admits that as per office order Ex.AD-6, an employee was entitlement to encashment of 15 days earned leaves in one calender year subject to certain conditions. It is stated that there was some issue with respect to the rules of leave encashment and accordingly, the said issue of leave encashment to the employees of the defendant was referred to the Finance Department which gave its opinion Ex.DW-1/1 stating that grantee institute or organization receiving more than 50% of recurring expenditure in the form of grants-in-aid, should ordinarily formulate terms and conditions of service of their employees which are by and large not higher than those applicable to similar category of employees in Central Government. Thereafter, the matter was examined by the Administrative Department of the defendant and was directed to be placed before the Governing Council vide noting dated 12.04.2013 under the signatures of A.K. Madan, DCI (HR). Thereafter, in its 11th meeting of the Governing Council held on 24.10.2013, it was decided that the earned leaves already encashed under any scheme will be considered while computing the maximum ceiling of encashment of earned leaves as per Rule 39 of CCS Leave Rules. The defendant has further proved the office order Ex.AD-12 that had been issued in pursuance of the 11th meeting of the Governing Council to the same effect. The plaintiff, by questioning the authority of the defendant to seek refund of excess earned leaves stated to have been encashed by him during service, is actually challenging the said office order Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2024.08.29 16:33:04 +0530 CS SCJ No.1490/2017 Page No.7/8 Raghuvinder Singh Kalra Vs. Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University Ex.AD-12. However, this court does not have the jurisdiction to decide the validity of the office order which has been passed on the basis of the decision taken in the 11th meeting of Governing Council of the defendant organization. This is a policy decision and hence, beyond the jurisdiction of this court. Even otherwise, the same has not been challenged by the plaintiff before this Court.
13. In view of the above discussion, the defendant has discharged its onus of proving that it has rightly adjusted the excess payment made to the plaintiff on account of earned leave encashment against the MACP arrears due towards him. Thus, nothing more is payable to the plaintiff. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue no.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest over the said amount? If yes, at what rate and for what period. (OPP)
14. The burden to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
15. In view of the findings on issue no.1, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
RELIEF
16. In view of the above said discussion, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
17. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due Digitally signed compliance. NEHA by NEHA MITTAL MITTAL Date: 2024.08.29 16:33:18 +0530 (Announced in the open Court) (NEHA MITTAL) th on 29 day of August, 2024 JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (NORTH-WEST) ROHINI COURTS/ DELHI CS SCJ No.1490/2017 Page No.8/8 Raghuvinder Singh Kalra Vs. Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University