State
of Haryana & Ors Vs. Shri K.N. Dutt [1995]
INSC 154 (24 February
1995)
Paripoornan,
K.S.(J) Paripoornan, K.S.(J) Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) Paripoornan, J.:
CITATION:
1996 AIR 183 1995 SCC (3) 144 JT 1995 (3) 466 1995 SCALE (2)5
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
1.
Delay condoned.
Leave
granted.
2. The
State of Haryana and the, Accountant General, respondents in Civil Writ
Petition No. 9110 of 1993 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, arc the
appellants. The petitioner in the Civil writ petition is the sole respondent
herein. The prayer in the writ petition was for a declaration that the
deduction of the alleged Government dues from DCRG (Death-cum-Retirement
Gratuity) of the petitioner is illegal and for a direction in the nature of
mandamus call- 468 ing upon the respondents in the writ petition the State of Haryana
and the Accountant General to refund the amount of Rs. 24,996/- along with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum. By order dated 10. 12.1993 the Division
Bench of the High Court, comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice B.S. Nehra, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents
in the writ petition to refund the amount of Rs. 24,996/-, deducted by the
State Government from the gratuity of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid decision of the Division Bench the appellants have come up in appeal.
3. We
heard counsel on both sides. The matter has a chequered history. The
respondent, a retired Chief Engineer of the Irrigation Department in the Haryana State, was a senior responsible officer. He retired on
30.11.1989. While in service the respondent had availed of House Building
Advance and Motor Car Advance loans against gratuity in the years 1973 and
1976. He had executed an agreement and had signed an undertaking that in case
he fails to repay the loan, the same can be recovered from his gratuity with
interest at the time of his retirement from the service. It seems that
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent, which resulted
in withholding of the outstanding retirement benefits. The respondents filed
Civil Writ Petition No. 12654 of 1990 and prayed for appropriate reliefs. A
Division Bench of the High Court comprising of Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri and
Mr. Justice K.P. Bhandari, directed the State of Haryana, Financial
Commissioner and the Accountant General, the respondents in the writ petition,
to release to the petitioner therein all pensionary benefits to which he was
entitled to under the rules as the charges were not served on him before his
retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. The judgment is dated
21.11.1990. Thereafter, the matter took a different turn. The respondent herein
initiated proceedings in contempt for implementation of the Judgment dated
21.11.1990. Finally, a learned Single Judge of the High Court passed the
following order dated 28.4.1993 in the matter:- "The proposition of law is
well settled that recovery of government dues from a superannuated employee can
be made from the gratuity. As such, the respondent State was in its competence
to deduct the government dues from the gratuity of the petitioner.
After
deduction of the dues from the gratuity, the balance amount has been disbursed
to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, this court's order dated
21.11.1990 has been duly complied with.
COCP
is accordingly dismissed. Rule dis- charged. " Thereafter, the respondent
filed writ petition No. 9110 of 1993 and prayed for a declaration that the
deduction of the Government dues amounting to Rs. 24,996/ from the DCRG amount
is illegal and ultra vires and for a direction to refund the said amount along
with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In the writ petition the order
appealed against was passed on 10.12.1993 by the Division Bench of the Punjab
& Haryana High Court. The Division Bench opined that no inquiry is pending
against the respondent nor any Government dues are to be realised from him and
so there is no legal basis to make any deduction in the amount of gratuity
payable and directed the appellants to refund 469 a sum of Rs. 24,996/-,
deducted illegally by the State Government from the gratuity of the respondent.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment the appellant have filed this appeal.
4. It
is unnecessary to traverse the entire gamut of the litigations between the
appellants and the respondent.
Briefly
stated, in Civil Writ Petition 12654 of 1990, a Bench of the High Court
directed that all the pensionary benefits due to the respondent to which he
would be entitled to under the rules, should be released or disbursed.
Thereafter,
the respondent initiated certain proceedings which finally culminated in
contempt petition No. COCP 1080 of 1991. Therein the court passed the final
order on 28.4.1993 justifying recovery of Government dues from the gratuity
payable to the superannuated employee and also stated that after deduction of
the dues from the gratuity payable, the balance disbursed to the petitioner and
the order passed by the Court dated 21.11.1990 in Civil Writ Petition No. 12654
of 1990 has been duly compiled with. The contempt petition was dismissed. The
order so passed by the learned Single Judge on 28.4.1993 has become final. It
was not taken in appeal before any forum. The order binds the parties thereto,
namely, the appellants as well as the respondent. In spite of the above, the
respondent filed Civil Writ petition No. 9110 of 1993 assailing deduction of
the Government dues from DCRG and praying for a direction to refund the amount
of Rs. 24,996/- deducted from the gratuity of the respondent. Without adverting
to the prior proceedings and in particular the order passed by the Court in
Contempt petition No. 1080 of 1990 dated 28.4.1993 the Division Bench allowed
the prayer of the respondent and held that a sum of Rs. 24,996/- has been deducted
illegally by the State Government from the gratuity of the respondent which
should be refunded forthwith. It is rather surprising that the Division Bench
totally ignored the earlier order dated 28.4.1993, passed by the court. It is
anybody's guess as to what promoted the Division Bench is ignore the earlier
order dated 28.4.1993 and to pass the impugned order dated
10.
12.1993. The respondent, a senior retired officer, himself owed a duty to bring
to the notice of the Court the earlier order dated 28.4.1993. We are not in a
position to know whether it was so done, This is a serious lapse indeed, which
cannot be countenanced. It is an abuse of the process of the Court. We are
further inclined to hold that the Division Bench of the High Court seems to have
passed the order in a causal manner in holding that the sum of Rs. 24,996/- was
deducted illegally by the State Government from the gratuity of the respondent
and in ordering the refund.
The
order so passed is patently unsustainable, improper and illegal. Such a plea
was not open to the respondent in the light of the earlier order of the Court
dated 28.4.93. The Division Bench acted illegally in entertaining such a prayer
and allowing it, totally ignoring the earlier order of the same court passed in
contempt petition No. COCP 1080 of 1991 dated 28.4.1993. We, therefore, set
aside the order passed by the High Court dated 10. 12.1993 and allow this
appeal with costs.
Back