Mohammadd Shabbir Nadvi vs Jamia Milia Islamia
1994 Latest Caselaw 635 Del

Citation : 1994 Latest Caselaw 635 Del
Judgement Date : 21 September, 1994

Delhi High Court

Mohammadd Shabbir Nadvi vs Jamia Milia Islamia on 21 September, 1994

Equivalent citations: 1994 IVAD Delhi 894, 56 (1994) DLT 583, 1995 LablC 200

Author: M Narain

Bench: M Narain, J Mehra

JUDGMENT

Mahinder Narain, J.

(1) Since the question involved in this case is short, we have heard the matter finally 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 paid the gratuity amount on his retirement on 31.7.82. Notice to show cause was issued to the respondents. In response to the show cause notice, the respondents have appeared and state that since the petitioner did not vacate the quarter, the gratuity amount was not paid.

(3) Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon F.R. Jesuratnam v. Union of India and Others reported as 1990 (Supp) S.C.C.640, which is to the effect that "gratuity is no longer a bounty but it is a matter of right of the employee and it can therefore no 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 & 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 the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, but it is not a "Government". We are satisfied that the dues claimed by the respondent cannot be treated as Government dues which are usually recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

(6) In this view of the matter, we hold that the respondents are not entitled to withhold any amount due to the petitioner as gratuity which became due onpetitioner's retirement 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. What we 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 same should 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.