Wazir Chand Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 5195-5197 of 1998
Petitioner: Wazir Chand
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 5195-5197 of 1998
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 14, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE LAW/GRATUITY
Constitution
Article 226 – Government servant, having superannuated, continu-ing in occupation of Government accommodation – Penal rent im-posed and recovered/adjusted from gratuity – Balance offered – Claim of full gratuity amount and interest thereon. Held, was not admissible. Appeal dismissed.
Constitution
Article 226 – Government servant, having superannuated, continu-ing in occupation of Government accommodation – Penal rent im-posed and recovered/adjusted from gratuity – Balance offered – Claim of full gratuity amount and interest thereon. Held, was not admissible. Appeal dismissed.
(Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. 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 Gov-ernment quarter, 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 appellants’s main contention is that in view of the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal against which the Union of India had approached this Court and the Special Leave Application was dismissed as with-drawn, it was bounden duty of the Union of India not to withold any gratuity amount, and therefore, the appellant would be enti-tled to the said gratuity amount on the date of retirement, and that not having been paid, he is also entitled to interest there-on. 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 quarter, 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 illegali-ty in the impugned order which requires our interference. The appeals stand dismissed.
1. 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 Gov-ernment quarter, 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 appellants’s main contention is that in view of the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal against which the Union of India had approached this Court and the Special Leave Application was dismissed as with-drawn, it was bounden duty of the Union of India not to withold any gratuity amount, and therefore, the appellant would be enti-tled to the said gratuity amount on the date of retirement, and that not having been paid, he is also entitled to interest there-on. 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 quarter, 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 illegali-ty in the impugned order which requires our interference. The appeals stand dismissed.
