VIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Petitioner was a Librarian in Lala Rajpat Rai Memorial Medical College, Meerut which is affiliated to Meerut University and is run and managed by State government. Petitioner retired on 31.8.2001. The dispute in this writ petition relates to retiral benefits of the petitioner which are not being paid. According to the respondents petitioner did not formally handover the charge and did not submit no dues certificate hence retiral benefits including pension have not been paid to him. Petitioner's case is that he completed the requisite formalities at the time of his retirement. Through this writ petition orders dated 9.9.2002,19.10.2002 and 14.11.2002 have been challenged. The first order has been passed by the Principal of the College. Through the said order petitioner's representation was decided in pursuance of direction of this Court issued in an earlier writ petition which had been filed by the petitioner. In the said order it is mentioned that no dues certificate is required to be submitted which has not been submitted by the petitioner, petitioner has not formally handed over charge of the Library. It is also mentioned that books of about Rs. 9 lacs are missing from the Library for which the petitioner is responsible. It has also been mentioned that there is no objection in paying pension and gratuity however, charge must properly be handed over by the petitioner and he must submit no dues certificate. The other order dated 19.10.2002 has also been passed by the Principal of the College. That was a letter written by the Principal to the petitioner in reply to petitioner's letter dated 16.10.2002. In that letter it is mentioned that petitioner even though reached the Library however, he declared that neither he had come to handover charge nor he would sign any letter. It was further directed that on 23.10.2002 by 2.30 P.M. petitioner should reach the library and handover charge to Shri Chandra Mohan Bahuguna. The third letter was also written by the Principal in the similar fashion and it was mentioned therein that he must formally handover the charge.

(3.) In the counter affidavit it has been stated that Enquiry Committee was set up to examine the matter of loss of books. The subsequent incumbent had given list of more than 2,000 missing books which has been annexed along with counter affidavit. Enquiry Committee also submitted its report on 26.10.2001, copy of which is part of Annexure-9 to the counter affidavit and the said copy was sent to the petitioner on 10.3.2003. In para-25 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that notice dated 10.3.2003 was sent along with Enquiry Committee's report. The said para has been replied in para-8 of rejoinder affidavit. The reply is that petitioner was not in service hence no charge sheet could be served upon him. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that official residence allotted to the petitioner had not been vacated by him. In para-29 of rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that even though petitioner has removed his assets from the house but he is keeping it under his lock and he would handover the same if it is allotted to any other person. It is a fantastic, utterly baseless plea.