Delhi High Court
Sh. C.L.Gupta vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. on 30 April, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 170/1997
% 30th April, 2013
SH. C.L.GUPTA ......Petitioner
Through: None.
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. On 4.2.2013, the following order was passed:-
The issue in the present case is as to whether the petitioner stood
compulsorily retired with effect from 31.12.1994 pursuant to his
application for Voluntarily Retirement dated 12.12.1994.
The only issue which arises is that can the petitioner continue to retain
the accommodation given by the employer and yet claim that VRS
could only be accepted unless first all the dues in terms of the
Voluntary Retirement Scheme were cleared by granting the same to
the petitioner.
In the present case, the employer/respondent No.2 had taken a
company lease of House No.202, Jor Bagh, New Delhi and which was
in occupation of the petitioner. The employer asked the petitioner to
vacate the quarter inasmuch as the same had been allotted to another
employee Shri S.C. Thedkar. On the one hand petitioner was not paid
his VRS dues, however, on the other hand, the petitioner continued to
WPC 170/1997 Page 1 of 5
occupy the leased accommodation of the employer. Therefore, what
the issue really boils down to is whether the petitioner is entitled to
claim that his voluntary retirement did not fructify because the dues
were not paid to him or that can the employer claim that VRS is final
but dues could only be paid to the petitioner on his vacating the
company leased accommodation.
There were further developments in that action was taken
against the petitioner under Section 630 of the Companies Act, and
which stood dismissed at the appellate stage on the petitioner
vacating the company leased accommodation. At the appellate
stage in the case under Section 630 of the Companies Act, the
petitioner is said to have paid approximately `2.00 lakhs to the
employer in terms of the directions issued by the Court
dealing with the
case.
As of today, however, there is no clarity as to why, if the petitioner
had balance dues, the same were not released to him. This, I am
observing, because counsel for the petitioner says that till date no part
of the VRS benefits have been released to the petitioner. Counsel for
Respondent No.2 is not aware of the facts as to whether any amount
has been paid to the petitioner, what is the amount which has to be
adjusted against the VRS claim of the petitioner, and finally what was
the reason why till date VRS dues minus the adjustments to be made
by the respondent No.2 have not been released to the petitioner.
Counsel for respondent No.2 prays for and is granted a period of three
weeks to file necessary affidavit. Reply, thereto, if any, be filed by the
petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
List for further proceedings on 11.3.2013.
2. Respondent no.2 has filed additional affidavit. The additional
affidavit shows that the petitioner was entitled to a total sum of ` 4,96,532/- on his
WPC 170/1997 Page 2 of 5
voluntary retirement application being accepted on 26.12.1994. The dues which
were payable to the petitioner were payable on 31.12.1994.
3. Dues of the petitioner were not paid because the petitioner refused to
vacate the premises allotted by the employer/respondent no.2 and therefore,
proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 were initiated against
the petitioner. These proceedings were ultimately compromised in the High Court
vide order dated 8.2.2012 in Criminal M.C No. 1804/2011 and Criminal M.A.No.
6482/2011 as the petitioner's deposit of Rs. 2 lacs was taken as compromised
amount by the respondent no.2 towards its claim for damages/compensation.
4. A reference to the additional affidavit shows that dues of the
petitioner were not released because the petitioner had amended the writ petition to
claim reinstatement. Therefore, on one hand, petitioner had claimed that he had
voluntarily retired w.e.f 26.12.1994, but on the other hand, petitioner was claiming
reinstatement because the dues of voluntary retirement were not paid.
5. In view of the above, in my opinion, this writ petition can be disposed
of with the direction that petitioner be now paid ` 4,96,532/- alongwith interest at
9% per annum simple from 8.2.2012. The date being 8.2.2012 is taken as the
respondent no.2 was entitled to withhold the dues payable to the petitioner against
its claims and it is only on this date that the petitioner's entitlement to the retiral
WPC 170/1997 Page 3 of 5
dues of a specific amount was crystallized after the respondent no.2 took the
amount of Rs. 2 lacs with interest in satisfaction of its claims.
6. In my opinion, once the petitioner's application for voluntary
retirement was accepted, and this is admitted by him even in the writ petition,
merely because dues are not paid, it cannot mean that the petitioner does not stand
voluntarily retired from the respondent no.2. Non-payment of dues is a matter
wholly independent of the aspect of acceptance of voluntary retirement which at
best entitled petitioner to file recovery proceedings but he cannot claim that
voluntary retirement did not come into effect. Also, in the facts of the present case
the respondent no.2 was justified in withholding the dues of ` 4,96,532/- on
account of petitioner illegally refusing to vacate the premises allotted to him during
the course of his employment and till the criminal case against the petitioner was
withdrawn as the petitioner had deposited in court an amount of ` 2 lacs towards
the claim of the respondent no.2 towards charges for illegal use and occupation of
property bearing no. 202, Jor Bagh, New Delhi.
7. The respondent no.2 will within a period of three weeks from today
give to the petitioner calculations as to how the specific amount of Rs.4,96,532/- is
the retiral dues and which was payable on the petitioner getting voluntary
retirement. Petitioner will be entitled to respond to the calculations, and the
respondent no.2 will thereafter determine the amount payable and pay the same to
WPC 170/1997 Page 4 of 5
the petitioner in three weeks thereafter. Respondent no.2 will pay the amount due
to the petitioner within three months from today. Any dispute as to what is the
amount payable on the voluntary retirement of the petitioner, and the balance
payable after the petitioner receives amounts from the respondent no.2, will be
aspects which will be considered in contempt proceedings, if any, on account of
non compliance of this judgment of payment of dues to the petitioner. Parties are
left to bear their own costs.
APRIL 30, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
At this stage, after the judgment was dictated counsel for the petitioner Ms.
Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate and counsel for the respondents Mr. Karan Kanwal,
Advocate appeared and they have been apprised of the above judgment.
APRIL 30, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
