S NARAYANASAMY Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this Writ Petition, praying for a direction to the respondents to pay Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum.

(2.) PETITIONER was working in the office of the High Court as a Court Officer and he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on the afternoon of 31. 01. 2007, pending disposal of the complaint given by one Raja, Advocate, regarding the owning of a house by the petitioner. First respondent has not taken any action to find out whether the so called complaint is genuine. Petitioner has given an application for sanction of pension on 07. 12. 2006 and after sanctioning the eligible pensionary benefits of pension, family pension, DCRG, communication etc. , the first respondent has forwarded pension proposal on 20. 07. 2007 to the second respondent for issuance of necessary authorisation after the retirement of the petitioner on 31. 01. 2007. Second respondent has returned the above proposal on 31. 08. 2007 stating to send the proposals again along with the final order against the complaint made in the retirement order, dated 31. 01. 2007. First respondent has retransmitted the pension proposals again in ROC No. 7533/2006/estt. 2, dated 29. 10. 2007, and the second respondent authorised the amount of gratuity of Rs. 2,51,969/- by withholding an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and net gratuity payable at Rs. 51,969/ -. Petitioner received the net gratuity amount of Rs. 51,969/- on 12. 03. 2008 i. e. , after a delay of more than a year of retirement of the petitioner, dated 31. 01. 2007.

(3.) REGARDING the alleged construction of the house, the petitioner has furnished his reply for the particulars sought for by the first respondent and the first respondent also forwarded the pension proposals for issuance of authorisation with the certificate of "no disciplinary/vigilance enquiry is pending" against the petitioner to the second respondent, informing that based on the allegation, the Revenue Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, had addressed to the Government to issue orders for collection of penal rent from the petitioner at Rs. 3,750/- per month for the rental quarters occupied by the petitioner from the date of completion of construction of house to 07. 11. 2001 and Rs. 7,500/- per month from 08. 11. 2001 to 07. 05. 2002 (date on which vacating the quarters) as per G. O. 454, since the petitioner has constructed the house in his wife's name in the year 1999. The house has been constructed by the father-in-law and not by the petitioner. Without knowing the actual date of completion of the house and without knowing who has constructed the house, it is impracticable to withhold the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. Hence, the decision to withhold the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the gratuity of the petitioner is arbitrary, unlawful and mischievous. There is no request and there cannot be a request by the Housing Board to withhold a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, since the actual date of completion of the house is not known. The order of withholding the above amount without any legal basis is, therefore, unlawful and a nullity in law. Hence, this Writ Petition.