Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1522 (JHR)

Project Officer, SDO-3, Bokaro v. Rajaram Singh

2012-10-05

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Although, notices were issued to the respondent no. 1 and he had entered his appearance through his counsel, which is reflected from the cause list, but today nobody appears on his behalf to contest his case. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, (C)-cum-Appellate Authority, Dhanbad under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the petitioner’s appeal has been dismissed by the Original Authority under the said Act of 1972 and order dated 22.05.2006 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hazaribag and Controlling Authority has been affirmed, where it was held that the employee/respondent no. 1 herein is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,36,688/-towards gratuity and the contention of the petitioner-employer that employer is entitled to withhold the said amount or deduct penal rent from gratuity payable to the employee concerned was rejected. 4. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 had retired as senior clerk on 30.11.2005 from the services of the petitioner-Management. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 had taken bank loan of Rs. 65,435/- which fell due. The petitioner was also asked to vacate the company quarters, which was allotted to him so that his gratuity amount can be released, but he failed to do so. The respondent, therefore, preferred application before the Controlling Authority under the Act of 1972 for release of his gratuity. The order dated 22.05.2006 was passed by the Controlling Authority i.e. the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hazaribagh for payment of his gratuity, directing the petitioner-Management to pay a sum of Rs. 2,36,688/-, even though, the Management had objected the same in view of his conduct in not vacating the quarter in question. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred an Appeal and the Appellate Authority has also dismissed the Appeal by adopting the same view as that of the Controlling Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Wazir Chand Vs. Union of India reported in (2001) 6 SCC 596 , wherein the employee had remained in unauthorized occupation of the official quarters after retirement, the employer was allowed to adjust the penal rent from the outstanding dues payable to him under the Heads of Post Retirement Dues including gratuity. 5. Union of India reported in (2001) 6 SCC 596 , wherein the employee had remained in unauthorized occupation of the official quarters after retirement, the employer was allowed to adjust the penal rent from the outstanding dues payable to him under the Heads of Post Retirement Dues including gratuity. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same judgment has also been followed by this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1870 of 2007 vide Judgment dated 31.07.2012. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. From the facts narrated hereinabove, it appears that the petitioner was ready to pay the gratuity amount to the employee subject to vacation of official quarters by him and deduction of penal rent in lieu thereof, which has been refused by the Statutory Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and upheld by the Appellate Authority under the said Act. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner is appears to be applicable in this case as well. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein below:- “These appeals are directed against the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the claim of the appellant, who happens to be a retired railway servant. Admittedly, the appellant even after superannuation continued to occupy the government quarters, though being placed under hard circumstances. For such continuance, the Government, in accordance with rules, has charged penal rent from the retired government servant, and after adjusting the dues of the Government, the balance amount of the gratuity, which was payable, has been offered to be paid, as noted in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appellant’s main contention is that in view of the Fu Bench decision of the Tribunal against which the Union of India had approached this Court and the special leave application was dismissed as withdrawn, it was the bounden duty of the Union of India not to withhold any gratuity amount and, therefore, the appellant would be entitled to the said gratuity amount on the date of retirement, and that not having been paid, he is also entitled to interest thereon. We are unable to accept this prayer of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. We are unable to accept this prayer of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The appellant having unauthorisedly occupied the government quarters was liable to pay the penal rent in accordance with rules and, therefore, there is no illegality in those dues being adjusted against the death-cum-retirement dues of the appellant. We, therefore, see no illegality in the impugned order which required our interference. The appeals stand dismissed.” 7. After going through the records and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and from perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it appears that the impugned order denying the employer to deduct penal rent from the outstanding dues of the employee is contrary to the decision laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and as such the impugned order is not sustainable. However, instead of quashing the impugned order it is modified to the extent that the employer is entitled to deduct/adjust the outstanding penal rent due from the employee-respondent no. 1 for the period of unauthorized occupation of the official quarters from his outstanding dues and the rest, if any, should be paid to the employee-respondent no. 1. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of and the impugned orders are subject to the aforesaid modification made herein.