S.C. Bajpai vs Shahid Bhagat Singh (Evening) ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 1482 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. Rule.

2. The pleadings are complete. Since the matter has been argued in detail and at length, I propose to dispose off the Writ Petition by this Order.

3. The contention of the Petitioner is that up to 1995 all his dues had been paid by the Respondent College. He was re-employed in 1995 itself and continued up to 31.5.2000. Thereafter, Dr. Satvir Singh succeeded him as the Principal, and as the ex-officio Chairman of the Provident Fund Committee. However, the Provident Fund dues as well as the Leave Encashment benefits for the period of re-employment (1995-2000) have not been released to the Petitioner despite several requests and reminders. Reliance is placed on a meeting of the Government Body of the College held on 5th July, 2000 in which it was resolved as follows:-

"Some members raised the issue with regard to release of final dues in respect of Dr. S.C. Bajpai who retired on 31st May, 2000. In this connection, some members objected to the release of P.F. etc. of Dr. S.C. Bajpai because there were some irregularities in the P.F. Accounts. The Chairman assured that he will issue the orders for the release of the P.F. and other dues etc. payable to Dr. S.C. Bajpai after verifying the facts, for which the members were requested that if they had any documentary evidence in this regard, they should submit the same to the Chairman of the Governing Body within 15 days. The Chairman, Governing Body, informed the members that since Dr. Bajpai had handed over the charge of files, documents and other property etc. which was in his charge during his tenure, to Dr. Satvir Singh, the newly appointed Principal, only on 14th June, 2000 and the file concerning the release of dues to Dr. Bajpai was received by him only towards the end of June, 2000, the matter was under consideration for appropriate orders."

4. Despite the fact that no objections were received in the said period of fifteen days, or in fact at any time thereafter, requisite action was still not taken in connection with the release of the Petitioner's dues. Hence, the Petitioner had no alternative but to file the present Writ Petition. The Stand/opposition of the College is that for the period 1996-97 to 1998-99 instead of investing the Provident Fund in the Unit Trust of India, as was the practice prior to this period, the Petitioner, as Chairman of the Provident Fund Committee, had decided to invest these funds in the Savings Bank Account of the College. An Inquiry Officer appears to have been appointed subsequent to the retirement of the Petitioner but the proceedings were not continued and completed by him. It is orally submitted that in the General Body meeting held on 5th August, 2001, it has been resolved to appoint a new Inquiry Officer. The contention of the College is that a loss of over Rs.3,50,000/- has been caused to the members/subscribers to the Provident Fund inasmuch as the interest rates payable by the Unit Trust of India is 11% per annum it is further submitted that if the amounts had been invested by the Committee even in Fixed Deposit Receipts, there would have been a loss of approximately Rs. 1,80,000/-. This is the reason why, at this stage, the Provident Fund and other dues of the Petitioner have not been released to him. On the last date of hearing, an application had been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Dr. Salahuddin Ahmed Siddiqui in which he had sought to be imp leaded in the Writ proceedings stating that he was the necessary party. As I was not satisfied that the Applicant had any connection whatsoever with the disputes in question, that application had been rejected in liming. Learned Counsel for the College further submits that there are various complaints against the Petitioner in respect of the manner in which he had invested the Provident Fund. In reply, a copy of a letter dated 12.9.2001 addressed to the Chairman of the Governing Body was, served on 17.9.2001, as is evident from the seal of the College. This letter has been handed over in the course of the hearing in order to substantiate that as many as 70 out of 75 contributors to the Provident Fund had stated tat they had no grievance against the Petitioner. I have mentioned this fact only for the reason that there is no prima facie evidence on the Record in support of the Respondent's contention that complaints were received against the manner in which the Provident Funds were administered by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was the Chairman of a Committee comprising other persons also. The decision is of the Committee. Yet no action has been taken or is proposed to be taken against the other members.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent lays great emphasis on the following sentence contained in Paragraph 9 of the Counter.

"The Petitioner as Chairman of the Provident Fund Committee used to take a decision regarding the maintenance and operation of the Provident Fund Account of the College."

From this portion of the pleadings, I am unable to discern that the allegation against the Petitioner was that he had personally mismanaged the funds for reasons not attributable to any other member of that Committee. On inquiry from Learned Counsel appearing for the College, it is evident that no action has been taken, or is proposed to be taken against any of the other members of this Committee. I am, therefore, unable to perceive the conduct of the Respondent College in any manner other than the carrying out of a witch-hunt and persecution against the Petitioner, after he has left office.

6. Mr. Bajaj states that it was incumbent on the Committee to invest the funds in accordance with the Ordinance xviii of the University Calender and that if these requirements had been complied with the funds ought not to have been placed in a Saving Bank Account. Even if ignoring the argument made by Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the decision to depart from the extant practice of investing these funds with the Unit Trust of India was because of disturbing indications of its financial well being gathered by the Committee, the departure certainly appears to be fortuitous for the purposes of the Provident Fund, keeping in view the fate of the Unit Trust of India. What is wholly missing in the arguments addressed by Counsel for the Respondent College is that there was any personal financial profit that had been gained by the Petitioner.

7. The Provident Fund and other dues ought to have been paid in July, 2000. Over a year has passed thereafter. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors O.S.F.C., and others, , in which it was held as follows:-

"In view of the absence of such provision in the above said regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30.6.95, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement."

8. No Rules or Regulations concerning the holding of an enquiry against a member, or even the Chairman of a Committee of the College has been produced. It is apparent that in respect of the inquiry the Respondent College appears to be dragging its feet. This fortifies the view that post his retirement, some influential members of the Governing Body are interested in delaying the payment of the Provident Fund and other dues to the Petitioner.

9. In these circumstances, the Petition is allowed and the Respondent College is directed to pay the Petitioner his Provident Fund as well as his Leave Encashment dues, along with the interest at the rate of 4.5 per cent which is the rate which was paid in the Saving Bank Account to the Petitioner within three weeks from today.

10. The only remaining question is whether costs should be imposed on the Respondents. Since I fail to appreciate the existence of any justifiable grounds for obstructing and delaying the payment of the dues, on the strength of the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Uma Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and Anr., , I direct to award costs of Rs.10,000/-