Inter-University Coordination and Grant Availability Cannot Justify Indefinite Delay in Paying Accrued Retirement Dues

The petitioner was appointed as a teacher at Himachal Pradesh University (HPU), Shimla in 1984. After 28 years of service, he was appointed as a Professor at Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal (Central) University (HNBGU) on March 30, 2012, and subsequently superannuated on March 30, 2019.

Seven years post-retirement, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus for the payment of outstanding retirement dues, including Leave Encashment, interest on delayed Gratuity, refund of pension deductions, and Retirement Travel Allowance (TA).

HNBGU contended that while some benefits were paid, a sum of ₹10,35,149 for Leave Encashment remained pending as HPU had not yet transferred the contribution for the petitioner’s 28-year tenure there.

The petitioner disputed the calculations, citing a University letter valuing Leave Encashment at ₹23,72,216, and claimed other dues remained unpaid.

1. Whether the respondent-University is liable to pay the balance retiral dues and Leave Encashment to the petitioner despite the non-transfer of funds from his previous employer.

2. Whether a Mandamus should be issued to coordinate the settlement of inter-University financial contributions to ensure the timely release of pensionary benefits.

The court relied on the established legal principle that retiral benefits are not a bounty but a right earned by service, and their payment cannot be indefinitely delayed due to administrative or inter-departmental lapses.

While specific statutes were not technicality cited, the court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Mandamus for the protection of the petitioner’s right to receive pension and terminal dues.

The court observed that the petitioner had been retired for over seven years.

It noted the administrative deadlock between HNBGU and HPU, where HNBGU claimed that the delay was due to HPU’s failure to remit the proportionate contribution of Leave Encashment for the petitioner’s 28-year service in Shimla.

The court found that such inter-institutional financial reconciliation should not prejudice the retiree. By directing a mandatory meeting (virtual or physical) between the Registrars of both Universities and allowing the petitioner to participate, the court aimed to resolve the factual disputes regarding the exact amount owed (₹23,72,216 vs. the lower figure claimed by the University) and the missing original TA documentation.

The Registrar of HNBGU was ordered to convene a meeting with the Registrar of HPU within four weeks to resolve all pending issues, with the petitioner permitted to participate virtually. HPU was directed to remit the necessary funds to HNBGU within three weeks of the meeting, and HNBGU was ordered to clear all pending dues of the petitioner within three weeks thereafter.

No specific order on the 18% interest was detailed, but all pending dues were ordered to be cleared.