IQBAL SINGH DHILLON Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is at the instance of a retired Director, Youth Welfare, who claims that the provident fund and all the other retiral dues have been denied on a specious ground that he had not accounted for the advances that he had taken for conduct of several youth festivals during his service. The liability had not been determined upto his retirement and after he was allowed to be retired, the entire terminal benefits have been withheld on the ground that the liability of the petitioner to the respondentUniversity is much more than the amount due to him. The petitioner's grievance is that for an amount which has not been ascertained and without holding an enquiry therefor to fix the liability, the non-payment of terminal benefits was clearly untenable. The issue, therefore, that what fall for consideration is whether the amount due and payable for the accumulation of provident fund could be denied by setting off the petitioner's entitlement against alleged liability by him for advances received by him and which had not been duly accounted for. Some more facts would be necessary to come to the grips of the problem that is posed through this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner had joined the services as Director and Head of the Department, Youth Welfare, Chandigarh, on 31.03.1978 and retired from the services on 30.04.2005. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had drawn advances from time to time from the respondent-University in the capacity of the Director of the Department of the Youth Welfare from 1978 to 2005. Grants and subsidies appear to have been given to the petitioner for onward disbursement to the Colleges for holding youth festivals etc. Out of several advances which had been given to the petitioner, the audit had an objection to 33 advances along with 25 subsidies that remained unadjusted and unaccounted. The petitioner had been served with several notices to reconcile the accounts and finalize the same by duly accounting for the advances made to him. The petitioner would contend that he had given all the explanations and the Vice Chancellor of the University had himself given post-facto sanction approval in respect of two objections pertaining to expenditure/utilization of about Rs.1,40,000/- on 08.04.2000. With respect to 31 other advances, the petitioner would claim that the copies of sufficient proofs from official records including the copies of the Dispatch Registers had been given with full details of fund utilization, accounts adjustment and expenditure reports from time to time. The petitioner would rely on several communications which he had with the Accounts Department and full details which he had furnished to the University and when on a particular incident on 20.01.2004, the office of the Registrar rejected the explanations and proofs given by the petitioner by letter dated 20.01.2004, the petitioner had sought to give a clarification for the doubts raised through his letter dated 16.02.2004 giving the necessary documents/information for accounts adjustments.

(3.) The truth is that respondents were demanding due accounting for the advances received by the petitioner and the receipt of the advances were themselves not denied. The justification for the non-payment of the provident fund amount by the University is by its reliance on Regulation 6 of the Provident Fund of the University Employees Regulation, which is reproduced hereunder:-