S.N. Mathur vs Gorakhpur University and Others

B.M. Lal and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.—Sri R.G. Padia, for the Petitioner, heard on the question of admission and stay.

By this petition, the Petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to make payment of post-retirement benefits.

It is submitted by Sri Padia that the Petitioner retired in the year 1990 but no post-retirement benefits were given to him with the result that the Petitioner along with other Petitioners had to file a writ petition No. 4239 of 1993 before this Court, and this Court vide order dated 21.9.1995 directed the authority concerned to make payment to those Petitioners. However, it is submitted that when this order was produced before the authority concerned, the authorities are recovering the penal rent from the Petitioner of the accommodation which was in occupation of the Petitioner. It is submitted that this penal rent cannot be charged from the Petitioner. This being so, if the Petitioner is so advised, he may make representation to the authority concerned, who shall consider the Petitioner''s representation and shall pass appropriate order. However, we make it clear that as far as the pension is concerned, the same cannot be withheld or adjusted or appropriated in any dues found against the Petitioner. We are also supported by Supreme Court judgment referred in R. Kapur Vs. Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication) Income Tax and Another, . It was observed that pension or gratuity cannot be withheld for not vacating the accommodation. The authority can independently recover under relevant Rules, i.e., 48A for payment of damages levied for over stay. Similarly in other Supreme Court authority Som Prakash v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 212 , the ratio was laid down that the pension and other statutory right, i.e., gratuity cannot be diminished or curtailed. If it is found that any sum is due against the Petitioner, the same can be adjusted from the Provident Fund of the Petitioner. Thus, the pension and gratuity amount be paid to the Petitioner, in compliance of our earlier order dated 21.9.1995. If the representation is made by the Petitioner, the same shall be disposed of within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned.

With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.