SHANTA MALHOTRA Vs. MANAGEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR . Shanta Malhotra, has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents and it has been prayed by the petitioner that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued against the respondents directing them not to deduct the penal rent amounting Rs. 1,00,580/- i.e. 50 times of normal rent for the months of November and December, 1999 for the small accommodation i.e. two rooms which were in possession of the petitioner when she was the Principal of the College.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that she retired as Principal of Arya Girls College on 30.6.1999 after rendering 40 years service. The college was affiliated with Kurukshetra University. The petitioner was given rent free accommodation i.e. she was in possession of two room set with courtyard. The rental value of the premises is Rs. 1243/- per year. The petitioner used to pay Rs. 100/- per month on account of water and electricity charges. The retiral benefits were not released to the petitioner on account of the malafide intention on the part of the respondent as a result of which the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 14698 of 1999 and obtained the orders dated 15.10.1999. Even those orders were not complied with. The petitioner filed a COCP No. 1607 of 1999 in which some interim directions were issued on 4.10.2000. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the management of the college issued notice for a sum of Rs. 1,00,580/- i.e. the 50 times of the house rent for two months and this demand is illegal, oppressive, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and the instructions of the government. According to the petitioner, she was entitled to rent free accommodation. The management allowed him to occupy the premises for four months and only 5% of the basic pay were charged from her for these four months but for the months of November and December, the petitioner is being compelled to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,580/- which demand is totally illegal, arbitrary. The respondents were called upon not to press for this demand and to release the retiral benefits but to no effect. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) A joint written statement was also filed on behalf of respondents 2, 5 and 6. According to these respondents, the petitioners have no cause of action against the respondents because the letter Annexure P-9 under challenge was issued by respondent No. 4 and order Annexure P-7 was issued by the High Court in a contempt petition. The dispute regarding the house rent allowance is pending in the Civil Courts at Ambala. It is pending between the petitioner and the management. No master servant relation arises. The State Government only provides the 95% of the deficit of the salary in the form of grant-in-aid to the colleges who are on grant-in-aid list of the State Government. The retiral benefits in the revised scales have already been released to the petitioner prior to 4.10.2000 accept (except ?) the pension. With this defence, these respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.