Jagjit Singh Walia vs Punjab Mandi Karan Board, Chandigarh

Bakhshish Kaur, J.—Jagjit Singh Walia-Secretary, Market Committee Malout retired from service of the Punjab Mandikaran Board (hereinafter referred to as ''the Board'') on November 30, 1987 on attaining the age of superannuation. Under the service rules and regulations, he is entitled for all the pensionary benefits - pension, gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund etc. The petitioner was not paid the pensionary benefits as permissible under the rules, therefore, he has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay the pensionary benefits to him, which have been withheld arbitrarily and unlawfully.

The respondents raised preliminary objection that the petitioner never vent to the grievances by way of filing a revision petition before the State Government u/s 42 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 before filing the present writ petition. He had also concealed certain facts as he was involved in material irregularities committed by him. RSA No. 465 of 1982 filed by the Committee arising from the judgment and degree of the courts below is pending before this Court. On merits, it is admitted that the petitioner had been serving the Board till he retired on attaining the age of superannuation. It is inter alia pleaded that after he has submitted necessary documents, the Board had made certain payments to him. i.e. arrears of pension with effect from 1.12.1987 to 30.9.1999, commuted value of pension and amount of leave encashment. However, the amount of gratuity and a portion of leave encashment due to the petitioner has been withheld and reason for the same is that certain amounts are outstanding against the petitioner on account of withdrawal of excess amount of travelling allowance amounting to Rs. 497.87 while serving in Market Committee, Malout. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

3.1 have heard Shri Kasturi Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of the fact that the respondent was informed through counsel.

Annexure P-l dated 16.11.1987 is the order of retirement. As per this order, the person retired from service on 3.11.1987 on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30.11.1987. On 25.5.1989 he had served a demand notice Annexure P-2 requiring the respondent to make payment of the pensionary benefits to him. It was not replied. However, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been paid the arrears of pension, provident fund etc. except gratuity and a portion of the leave encashment. The question that arises for consideration is whether the respondents can withhold this amount just because the petitioner had withdrawn an excess amount of Rs. 497.87 about 12 years ago. This amount is reflected in Annexure R-1 issued by the Secretary, Market Committee, Malout addressed to the Administrative Officer, Punjab Mandikaran Board, Chandigarh. The amount was due from the petitioner according to the Audit Department, as has been mentioned therein. If at all this petty amount of Rs. 497.87 is outstanding against the petitioner, whether the petitioner was chargesheeted or whether any departmental enquiry was initiated against him before his retirement. The answer to this query is not coming forth and the learned counsel for the petitioner on being enquired, only submitted that no such enquiry is pending against the petitioner. For the sake of argument, assuming the amount is due from the petitioner as found during audit, then the authorities concerned could very well deduct the amount and realise the balance amount of gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner. They have no right to sit over the matter and withhold the entire amount simply for the reason that some amount is outstanding against the petitioner since 1988. Annexure R-1 indicates that on the date of retirement on 3.11.1987. With effect from 30.11.1987, this amount was not due from him, rather it come to the notice of the authorities concerned only through audit for the first time and thus a letter was issued on 11.3.1988 to the Administrative officer of the Board by the Secretary. Thus/taking into consideration all these facts, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to payment of the amount of gratuity and leave encashment minus the amount outstanding against the petitioner.

In view of the above, this petition, is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the amount of gratuity is well as portion of the leave encashment withheld by them along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date it became due till its payment. However, at the time of releasing the amount, the respondent will be entitled to deduct the amount of Rs. 497.87 from the amount payable to the petitioner when it became due or withhold the same pending an enquiry or recovery proceedings against the petitioner. The amount as aforesaid be released to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Petition allowed.