UNION OF INDIA Vs. SWARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the respondent in O.A. No.61 of 1996 against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Patna. That O.A. No.61 of 1996 was filed by the applicant the respondent herein, praying for disbursement of the retiral benefits, alleged to be due to him with interest thereon. There was also a prayer for declaring that the demand of penal rent from the respondent herein on the ground of non -vacation of the quarter admittedly occupied by him even after his retirement was illegal. The employer took stand that the penal rent recoverable from the employee -respondent herein, was liable to be adjusted towards the amount due to the respondent by way of retirement benefits and consequently the application before the Tribunal was liable to be dismissed. It was also contended that the penal rent was being charged in terms of the relevant Rules and the amount was liable to be adjusted in view of the Undertaking given by the respondent herein while accepting the allotment of the quarter. The Tribunal only held that the writ petitioner, the employer was not entitled to adjust the retiral benefits due to the applicant before it against the penal rent or licence fee due to it in respect of the quarters occupied by the respondent herein. It did not hold that penal rent was not payable by the respondent herein but only decided that the same should not be adjusted, apparently meaning that it will be recovered independently by writ petitioner, the employer. It did not award any interest to the respondent but ordered that retiral benefits amounting to Rs.1,54,179.10 ps. be disbursed to the respondent herein within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of its order.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the decision of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna relating to the same employer and another employee, similarly situated, interpreting the Rule in question. The Tribunal should not have taken a different view in this case and the earlier judgment has been produced as Annexure -6. Counsel further submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in error in following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Gorakhpur University v. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra, 2001 III CLR 262 SC : 2001 LIC 2821 : AIR 2001 SC 2433, since that case was clearly distinguishable on facts. Counsel submitted that this is a case, which was covered by the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Wazir Chand v. Union of India 2001 6 SCC 596 : 2001 AIR SCW 5098 and the Tribunal completely failed to consider the applicability of the ratio of that judgment, on the facts of this case. Counsel also contended that going by the Rules governing the allotment and the undertaking, Annexure -5, given by the respondent, while going into occupation of the building or quarters, the writ petitioner was clearly entitled to adjust the amount as penal rent against the retiral benefits due to the respondent. It can be seen that the penal rent was payable as per the Rules and the undertaking given by the respondent herein and the Tribunal was not justified in disposing of the Original Application in the manner in which it has done.

(3.) THE respondent was appointed as a Scientist 'C ' in the Central Fuel Research Institute. After he was appointed as Scientist, he was offered allotment of a quarter. He accepted the allotment as proposed. Annexure -5 is a communication containing the undertaking, which the respondent was to give prior to occupying the quarters. It will be appropriate to quote the undertaking, which is as follows: