Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.3 It is submitted that since inquiry was respondent No.l's  retirement   dues   were   withheld.   It   is   submitted   that   while  respondent   No.   1   was   in   service,   respondent   No.l   had   taken  housing loan and while taking loan, respondent No.1 had given  undertaking  in  terms  of clause  11  (5)  of the  HBA Regulations  that   he   agrees   to   get   adjusted   amounts   of   interest   on   HBA  sanctioned   by   the   Board   (then   Gujarat   Electricity   Board)   as  well as balance contemplated, of principal of HBA 10an (if not  recovered in full) from the payment or service gratuity payable  at the time o his retirement / superannuation / resignation. A  undertaking given by respondent No.1 is annexed herewith  copy  of and marked as ANNEXURE­C.  2.4 It is submitted that since at the time of retirement of  respondent  No.1  the  respondent  No.1  had  not  paid loan  as  per  the undertaking given by respondent No.1, amount of Rs. 64,203  by deducting Rs. 64,203/­, amount of Rs.02,85,737/­was offered  to   respondent   No.   1   on   02.01.2014.   Since   respondent   No.1  refused   to   take   the   amount,   petitioner   made   fixed   deposit   of  the   said   amount   in   nationalize   bank.   It   is   submitted   that  subsequently   respondent   No.   1   filed   application   before   the  Controlling   said   of   Authority   inter   alia   claiming   amount  gratuity with interest. 

4.2 Instead, the amount payable towards gratuity  was   (as   observed   in   the   order   passed   by   the  Controlling Authority) deposited in Fixed Deposit  with  the  clarification   that the  amount  shall  be  paid   on   conclusion   of   the   domestic   enquiry   and  subject to the order of Disciplinary Authority.  4.3 Another fact which emerges from the record is  that before the respondent retired from service,  he had availed House Building Allowance.  4.4 According to the petitioner, the amounts due  and   payable   towards   repayment   of   the   said   loan  were not paid by present respondent and a sum of  Rs.64,203/­ was required to be recovered from the  petitioner towards unpaid interest in respect of  the said HBA.

4.7 The   petitioner   herein   opposed   the   said  application   on   various   grounds,   including   the  objection on the ground that the application was  not   filed   within   prescribed   time   limit   and  therefore,   the   said   belated   application   should  not   be   entertained.   The   petitioner   also   opposed  the application on the ground that the applicant  had,   while   availing   the   loan   (HBA),   given  declaration   and   undertaking   that   if   any   unpaid  amount   towards  HBA  /  interest  remains  unpaid  at  C/SCA/1497/2015 JUDGMENT the   time   of   retirement   /   superannuation   /  resignation, then such amount may be recovered /  adjusted   from   gratuity   and   that,   therefore,   the  claim application is not maintainable.  4.8 The authority did not accept the contentions  and   allowed   the   application   vide   order   dated  5.3.2014   and   directed   the   petitioner   to   pay  Rs.3,50,000/­ towards gratuity with interest 10%.  4.9 Since   at   the   relevant   time   upper   limit   for  payment of gratuity was fixed, under the Act, at  Rs.3,50,000/­,   the   Controlling   Authority  restricted the amount payable towards gratuity to  Rs.3,50,000/­.

4.15  The petitioner is aggrieved by the said two  orders. Therefore, present petition.  

5. Several   contentions   are   raised   by   learned  advocate for the petitioner against the impugned  orders   including   the contention  that  in view  of  the   undertaking   /   declaration   given   by   the  respondent,   the   petitioner   is   entitled   to  adjust   /   recover   unpaid   amount   towards   HBA   and  that   since   the   amount   payable   towards   gratuity  i.e. Rs.2,85,797/­ and that after adjusting said  amount, the amount payable was already deposited  in   Fixed   Deposit   which   amounts   to   discharge   of  petitioner's obligation and that, therefore, any  interest   could   not   have   been   awarded   for   the  period in respect of Rs.2,85,797/­ which came to  be   deposited   by   the   petitioner   and   the   deposit  C/SCA/1497/2015 JUDGMENT made by the petitioner (by way of Fixed Deposit  in   Nationalised   Bank)   should   be   treated   as  discharge of employer's obligation for payment of  gratuity   and   that   the   direction   to   pay  Rs.3,50,000/­   towards   gratuity   is   erroneous   and  unjustified  and in  any case,  interest  could  not  have   been   awarded   in   respect   of   entire   amount  from 1.2.2010 etc.   According to the petitioner,  the   Controlling   Authority   also   failed   to  appreciate   that   the   employer   was   entitled   to  recover   Rs.64,203/­   from   the   amount   payable  towards gratuity, in view of the declaration and  undertaking   given   by   the   respondent   while  availing HBA.