Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 642 (DEL)

MOHAMMAD SHABBIR NADVI v. JAMIA MILIA ISLAMIA

1994-09-21

J.K.MEHRA, MAHINDER NARAIN

body1994
Mahinder Narain ( 1 ) SINCE the question involved in this case is short, we have heard the matterfinally with the consent of the Counsel and proceed to dispose of the writ petition. ( 2 ) IN this case, the petitioner has claimed that the respondents have not paidthe gratuity amount on his retirement on 31. 7. 82. Notice to show cause was issuedto the respondents. In response to the show cause notice, the respondents haveappeared and state that since the petitioner did not vacate the quarter, the gratuityamount was not paid. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has relied upon F. R. Jesuratnam v. Union of Indiaand Others reported as 1990 (Supp) S. C. C. 640, which is to the effect that "gratuityis no longer a bounty but it is a matter of right of the employee and it can thereforeno longer be regarded as a provision in the discretion of the President (employer) ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the respondents refers to Rule 71 of the Central Civil Services (Pension and Gratuity) Rules to support his case of withholding of gratuity amount. We find that the said Rule relates to the recovery and adjustment of "governmentdues". ( 5 ) THE respondent, Jamia Milia Islamia, although is a "state" within themeaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, but it is not a "government". We aresatisfied that the dues claimed by the respondent cannot be treated as Governmentdues which are usually recoverable as arrears of land revenue. ( 6 ) IN this view of the matter, we hold that the respondents are not entitled towithhold any amount due to the petitioner as gratuity which became due onpetitioner s retriement on 31. 7. 82. No amount can be deducted from the gratuity. As far as other retiral benefits are concerned, we are not passing any order. Whatwe direct is that whatever is due as gratuity ought to be paid. ( 7 ) THE amount of gratuity has been withheld from 31. 7. 82, therefore, the sameshould be paid with interest, as claimed @ 10% p. a. , within one month from today. ( 8 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, we think, the petitioner should be paid costs, which are quantified at Rs. 2500. 00. PETITION stands disposed of in the above terms.