GORAKHAPUR UNIVERSITY Vs. SHITLA PRASHAD NAGENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent in the above appeal was initially appointed as a Teacher in the Sociology Department of the appellant-University on 23-3-1963 (sic 73) and subsequently promoted as a Professor. The appellant-University had provided him with University accommodation. During the period between 20-5-1986 and 19-5-1989 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 11-1-1990, 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 30-6-1990. 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 1-7-1990. 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 25-3-1996. The appellant also does not seem to have taken steps to settle the claim relating to terminal benefits.

(2.) Since the appellant-University did not settle the first respondent's 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 17-8-1998, applying the principles laid down in Som Prakash vs. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 212) and R. Kapur vs. Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication) Income-tax (1994) 6 SCC 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.

(3.) 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 unauthorised 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. ViceChancellor, 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, JT 2000 1 Suppl. SC 515 as against the decisions noticed by the Division Bench of the High Court while deciding the case on hand.