Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 63 (MEG)

Shri. Quamar Lyngdoh v. State of Meghalaya

2014-04-10

S.R.SEN

body2014
Order This instant writ petition is directed against the impugned Office order dated 11.05.11 issued by the respondent No. 2 for adjusting the gratuity and leave encashment benefits of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner’s case in nut shell is that “this is an application under Article-226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or Certiorary and/or any other Writ, Order or Direction assailing the impugned Office Order No. MTDC/PER/119/87/490, dated 11.05.11 issued by the respondent No. 2 in arbitrary and illegally adjusting the gratuity and leave encashment benefits of the petitioner after his retirement. The petitioner while in service in the Meghalaya Tourism Development Corporation (MTDC) was asked to take up additional responsibilities for repair and renovation besides other urgent works. The respondent released an advance amount of Rs. 10,02,541/- for execution of the work and the petitioner completed the said work entrusted to him and to the satisfaction of all concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner as required submitted the account/bills to the respondent No. 2 amounting to Rs. 8,31,441/- and the bills for the remaining amount could not be submitted by the petitioner as the corresponding files where all vouchers/cash memos etc were yet to be received by the petitioner from the other unit of MTDC i.e. In-charge of Orchid Lake, Umiam. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, for almost two months after leaving the Corporation, respondent vide impugned Office Order No. MTDC/PER/119/87/490, dated 11.05.11 without any opportunity to show cause/hearing informed the petitioner that the accounts/bills amounting to Rs. 8,31,441/- submitted by the petitioner could not be accepted. Hence, the advance amount of Rs. 10,02,541/- has been adjusted against the gratuity and leave encashment, thus deprived the petitioner of his legitimate dues and post retirement benefits for no faults of his own. Being aggrieved and dissatisfaction by the illegal action of the respondent by issuing the said impugned Office Order referred above, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court for redressal of his genuine grievances.” 3. Ms Rashi Paul, the learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner served in the office of the MTDC with sincerity and dedication and supposed to be retired on 30.11.10 but his service was extended for another 3 months and finally he retired on 28.02.11. Ms Rashi Paul, the learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner served in the office of the MTDC with sincerity and dedication and supposed to be retired on 30.11.10 but his service was extended for another 3 months and finally he retired on 28.02.11. During his service, he has been entrusted with additional works to renovate the office of the MTDC and the advance amount of Rs. 10,02,541/- was sanctioned for the said renovation, out of which the work allotted under the supervision of the petitioner was Rs. 8,31,441/- and the rest was under the supervision of another officer. But to the utter surprise of the petitioner and in spite of submitting the accounts/bills, his gratuity and leave encashment was not paid to him on the ground that it has been adjusted against the said amount of Rs. 10,02,541/-, so necessary direction may be given as this Court deemed fit and proper. 4. On the other hand, Mr. RB Pradhan, the learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the respondent MTDC submitted that the Corporation is ready to pay the post retirement benefits if petitioner submits the accounts/bills in the proper format. In reply, petitioner’s counsel further contended that, as per the letter dated 1.02.12 (Para-4) at Page-39, it is clearly shown that there is no separate Financial Procedures and the MTDC follows the Financial Rules of the State of Meghalaya. 5. After going through the file placed before me, I do not find any inquiry was conducted against the petitioner before adjusting his post retirement benefits nor any evidence has been placed before this Court that the petitioner is found guilty in misappropriation. The learned counsel for the respondent has admitted that, no departmental inquiry has been conducted nor it has been established that the said amount has been misappropriated by the petitioner and the only contention of the learned counsel is that, if the petitioner submits the accounts/bills in proper format, the respondent MTDC is ready to pay all the post retirement benefits. 6. It is also admitted that the renovation works or repairing works, whatever the case may be started since the year 2001 and completed prior to the retirement of the petitioner. 6. It is also admitted that the renovation works or repairing works, whatever the case may be started since the year 2001 and completed prior to the retirement of the petitioner. It is further admitted from the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that, the Assistant Engineer of the MTDC was supposed to submit the completion certificate for the work allotted to the petitioner. If it is so, what was the reason that the Assistant Engineer did not submit the completion certificate in time; that remains un-explained. 7. It is a common knowledge that, if the work has already been completed in the year 2001, for which completion certificate cannot be asked in the year 2011 because at that point of time, it will be difficult to ascertain the actual work done. Further, from the pleading of the respondent, it is also not clear why and for what reason accounts/bills, completion certificate etc were not asked from the petitioner immediately after the completion of work rather he has been asked on the verge of his retirement. However, whatever the case may be, one point remains clear from record that there was no reason or ground available to adjust the post retirement benefits of the petitioner against the sanctioned amount. It is also not clear from record that the petitioner has misappropriated the said amount. As per the letter dated 1.02.12 (Para-4) at Page-39, it is clearly mentioned that MTDC follows the Financial Rules of the State of Meghalaya in absence of Financial Procedures, approved by the Board. 8. Therefore, I am unable to record any reason to justify that the respondent was right in adjusting the post retirement benefits of the petitioner against the amount sanctioned, hence, the respondent is directed to release the post retirement benefits of the petitioner within 1(one) month from the date of receipt of this order. However, this Judgment & Order passed by this Court will not prevent the respondent from taking nature course of law, if it is really a genuine case of misappropriation, but it should not be out of personal vendetta or revenge. 9. With these observations and directions, this instant writ petition is allowed and the matter stands disposed of.