Gorakhpur University & Ors Vs. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra & Ors [2001] Insc
369 (7 August 2001)
S. Rajendra
Babu & Doraiswamy Raju Raju, J.
The
first respondent in the above appeal was initially appointed as a Teacher in
the Sociology Department of the appellant-university on 23.3.63 (Sic 73) and
subsequently promoted as a Professor. The appellant-university had provided him
with university accommodation.
During
the period between 20.5.86 and 19.5.89 the first respondent was appointed as
Vice-Chancellor of the University of Lucknow but, in spite of the same, he appears to have continued to
hold the accommodation without vacating the same. It is obvious from the facts
stated that after his tenure as Vice-Chancellor he rejoined the
appellant-university and continued to serve till 11.1.90, the date on which he
attained the age of superannuation and even thereafter was continued on
re-employment basis in terms of the First Statutes of the University till
30.6.90. It is an undisputable fact that he will be entitled to the payment of
pension and settlement of his claim as such with effect from 1.7.90. Though, it
is stated that the first respondent or for that matter any employee is entitled
to retain the university accommodation for 4 months after retirement, the fact
remained that he held the accommodation till 25.3.96. The appellant also does
not seem to have taken steps to settle the claim relating to terminal benefits.
Since
the appellant-university did not settle the first respondents claim for
terminal benefits including the fixation and disbursement of the pension, the
first respondent filed C.M.W.P. No.30428/97. The Writ Petition was opposed by
the appellant- university contending that the first respondent, having not
vacated the quarter held by him when he retired and within the permissible
extended period, was liable for payment of penal rent in respect of such
accommodation and that as a matter of fact the Finance Controller, Office of
Directorate of Higher Education, U.P., who examined his pension papers, ordered
on the recommendation of the university-authorities the adjustment of
Rs.3,20,638.04 from the amounts due towards the retiral benefits. Further, a
sum of Rs.64,441.54 was also ordered to be deducted from the Provident Fund
amount due to first respondent. On a consideration of the respective claims of
parties, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by its Order dated
17.8.98, applying the principles laid down in Som Prakash vs Union of India
(AIR 1981 S.C. page 212) and R. Kapur vs Director of Inspection (Painting and
Publication) Income Tax & Anr. (1994) 6 SCC page 589) overruled the
objections of the University holding that the pension and other retiral
benefits cannot be withheld or adjusted or appropriated for the satisfaction of
any other dues outstanding against the retired employee. The action of the
university authorities to the contrary was held to be illegal and while
allowing the claim of the first respondent, a direction came to be issued to
pay the entire pension and Provident Fund etc. due to first respondent, with
penal interest @ 18% within two months from the date of the order.
Aggrieved,
the university authorities have come up before this Court. The learned senior
counsel for the appellants contended that when the respondents did not vacate
the official quarters even after retirement and rendered himself liable for
penal rent for such unauthorized occupation, there is every justification in
law to adjust the amounts due therefor to the university before settling and
disbursing the terminal benefits and no exception could be taken for the move
made on behalf of the University. It was contended further that unless
certificate of no dues or `no liability could be issued the question of finalising
pension papers will not arise at any rate, as long as the claims relating to
payment of penal rent remained unsettled.
The
decision in Daya Shankar Lal vs Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad (1992 (1) UPLBEC 654) was relied
upon to contend that the Division Bench in this case committed an error in
taking a contra view. Reliance has also been placed on the decisions reported
in Wazir Chand vs Union of India & Others (JT 2000 Suppl. (1) SC 515) as
against the decisions noticed by the Division Bench of the High Court while
deciding the case on hand.
Per
contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents,
while justifying the relief granted to his client, highlighted certain facts
which, according to the learned counsel, were peculiar to the case on hand and
the stand taken for the appellant-university both before the High Court and
this Court is unreasonable, unjust and only demonstrated an attitude of
vindictiveness. The relevant facts so pointed out from the materials on records
before us are that, every month the normal rent that was payable was being
remitted continuously to the university and the same was being accepted without
demur till 23.3.96 when the quarter was vacated, that in spite of a request and
application made, as per practice in vogue for the allotment of the quarter in
the name of his son who is also in the employment of the appellant-university
as Lecturer no orders were passed thereon, that there are resolutions of the
university to waive penal rent and grant of such benefit to persons even as late
as in 1996, showed that a different stand and treatment to the respondent alone
constituted hostile discrimination, that it was unreasonable to charge also
rates stipulated by the Government in the year 1998 in the case of the
respondent who retired in 1990 and vacated in 1996 and that the appellant not
only did not choose to take any action to get the respondent vacated in
accordance with law but on the other hand acquiesced in the occupation by
accepting regularly the normal rent. A grievance has also been made that no
notice or opportunity was given before determining and fixing liability for the
penal rent. It was also contended that apart from these facts demonstrating
lack of bona fides in the appellant, the withholding of information about the
dismissal of the appeal filed by it on 22.7.96 in SLP (C) CC..329/96, against
the earlier decision of a Division Bench reported in S.N. Mathur vs Gorakhpur
University, Gorakhpur, & Others [1996 (2) ESC 211 (All.)] taking the very
same view as in the present case in respect of another employee of the
appellant- university, indicated the unethical approach of the University and
therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed as of no merit.
We
have carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the respective parties
before us. The earlier decision pertaining to this very university reported in
1996 (2) ESC 211 (All.) (supra) is that of a Division Bench rendered after
considering the principles laid down and also placing reliance upon the
decisions of this Court reported in 1994 (6) SCC 589 (supra) which, in turn,
relied upon earlier decisions in State of Kerala vs M. Padmanabhan Nair [1985
(1) SCC 429] and AIR 1981 SC page 212 (Supra). This court has been repeatedly
emphasizing the position that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any
bounty to be distributed by Government but are valuable rights acquired and
property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof
should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the
form of payment of interest. Withholding of quarters allotted, while in
service, even after retirement without vacating the same has been viewed to be
not a valid ground to withhold the disbursement of the terminal benefits.
Such
is the position with reference to amounts due towards Provident Fund, which is rendered
immune from attachment and deduction or adjustment as against any other dues
from the employee. In the context of this, mere reliance on behalf of the
appellant upon yet another decision of a different Division Bench of the very
High Court rendered without taking note of any of the earlier decisions of this
court but merely proceeding to decide the issue upon equitable considerations
of balancing conflicting claims of respective parties before it does not
improve the case of the appellant any further.
Reliance
placed for the appellant university on the decision reported in JT 2000 Suppl.
(1) SC 515 (Supra) does not also sound well on the facts and circumstances of
this case. It is not clear from the facts relating to the said decision as to
whether the person concerned was allowed to remain in occupation on receipt of
the normal rent as in the present case. As noticed earlier, the case of the
contesting respondent in this case is that the university authorities regularly
accepted the rent at normal rates every month from the petitioner till the
quarters was vacated and that in spite of request made for the allotment of the
said quarters in favour of the son of the respondent, who is in the service of
the university, no decision seems to have been taken and communicated though it
is now claimed in the Court proceedings that he is not entitled to this type of
accommodation.
Further,
the facts disclosed such as the resolutions of the university resolving to
waive penal rent from all Teachers as well as that of the Executive Council
dated 18.7.1994 and the actual such waiver made in the case of several others
cannot be easily ignored. The lethargy shown by the authorities in not taking
any action according to law to enforce their right to recover possession of the
quarters from the respondent or fix liability or determine the so-called penal
rent after giving prior show-cause notice or any opportunity to him before ever
even proceeding to recover the same from the respondent renders the claim for
penal rent not only a seriously disputed or contested claim but the university
cannot be allowed to recover summarily the alleged dues according to its whims
in a vindictive manner by adopting different and discriminatory standards. The
facts disclosed also show that it is almost one year after the vacation of the
quarter and that too on the basis of certain subsequent orders increasing the
rates of penal rent, the applicability of which to the respondent itself was
again seriously disputed and to some extent justifiably too, the appellant
cannot be held to be entitled to recover by way of adjustment such disputed
sums or claims against the pension, gratuity and provident fund amounts
indisputably due and unquestionably payable to the respondent before us. The
claims of the university cannot be said to be in respect of an admitted or
conceded claim or sum due. Therefore, we are of the view that no infirmity or
illegality could be said to be vitiated the order, under challenge in this
appeal, to call for our interference, apart from the further reason that the
disbursements have already been said to have been made in this case as per the
decision of the High Court.
The
appeal fails and, therefore, shall stand dismissed. No costs. We make it clear
that this shall not have the effect of foreclosing the rights of the
university, if any, if the appellant chose to workout the same, as is
permissible in law.
J.
[ S. Rajendra
Babu ] J.
[ Doraiswamy
Raju ] August 7, 2001.
Back
Pages: 1 2
