MUNICIPAL CORPN Vs. JAGDAMBA DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, we propose to dispose of three connected matters, i.e., LPA Nos. 885, 889 of 1992 and CWP No. 15994 of 1992, as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. Learned counsel for the parties also suggested likewise. The facts have, however, been extracted from LPA No. 885 of 1992.

(2.) Having retired as an Electrician a decade ago on June 30, 1990, Jagdamba Dutt (hereinafter to be referred as the petitioner) has not vacated the quarter allotted to him when he was in the employment of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, (hereinafter to be referred as appellant). Having raised substantial construction by spending considerable amount thereon, he was not prepared to vacate it at any stage nor even now. Concededly, the appellant has withheld his provident fund, gratuity and encashment of earned leave on the plea of adjustment of the amount that petitioner has to pay by way of house rent/penalty. The pertinent question that has been raised in this Letters Patent Appeal, thus, is as to whether, based upon the service rules, as also provisions contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, he can enforce his right for the retiral dues, as mentioned above, or that the Court in its writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, can relegate him to his ordinary remedy of civil suit where it may be possible to work out adjustments and to pay him residual, if any. Petitioner, for his cause, however, succeeded before the learned single Judge as, vide impugned judgment dated January 31, 1992, his petition was allowed and the appellant was directed to release the amounts due to him within two months from the receipt of the copy of the order. The petitioner was also held entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% from October 1, 1990 till the date of actual payment as also costs that were assessed at Rs. 2000.00 . It is this order of learned single Judge which has been called in question in this appeal filed by the appellant under Clause X of the Letters Patent.

(3.) Before we may, however, advert to the question referred to above in the light of submissions made by the learned counsel representing the parties, it would be useful to give the factual matrix leading petitioner to demand post retiral benefits as detailed above.