Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1874 of 1999
PETITIONER:
GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DR. SHITLA PRASAD NAGENDRA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/08/2001
BENCH:
S. Rajendra Babu & Doraiswamy Raju
JUDGMENT:
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)
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
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.