Smt. Tara Balgopal vs Rajdhani College & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 3526 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 6156/1998
%                                                           8th August, 2013

SMT. TARA BALGOPAL                                         ......Petitioner
                 Through:                Mr. Bhupesh Narula and Mr. Sunny
                                         Arora, Advocates.


                          VERSUS

RAJDHANI COLLEGE & ANR.                                    ...... Respondents
                 Through:                Ms. Beenashaw Soni and Mr. Sant
                                         Ram, Adv. for R-1.

                                         Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv. for
                                         UGC.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           Petitioner was an employee of the respondent no.1-college.

Through this writ petition petitioner claims monetary emoluments under

various heads from the respondent no.1. The heads under which claims are

made are arrears towards higher grade pay, leave encashment allowance,

amount due on account of wrongful deductions made from the salary, LTC

and so on. I may note that effectively, petitioner is seeking a money decree

from the respondent no.1 under different heads. Although, ordinarily suits
WPC 6156/1998                                                         Page 1 of 6
 should be filed for such claims, however, considering that it is an old matter

and there are really no vexed questions of facts, therefore, I am proceeding

to dispose of this writ petition on merits.

2.           The first claim of the petitioner is that on being appointed to the

respondent no.1-college as on 16.7.1965, petitioner's salary should have

been fixed instead of ` 400, at the figure of ` 440/- w.e.f 1.2.1966. etitioner

claims an amount of `3,41,135.41.


3.           A reference to the writ petition shows that no calculations

whatsoever are given, and there are no pleadings before this Court as to how

this figure of ` 3,41,135.41 is arrived at. Detailed calculations on this aspect

were necessary because it is not disputed that petitioner was entitled to `

440/- per month w.e.f 1.2.1966, however, the respondent no.1 states that

whatever amount was due to the petitioner stands paid. Therefore, in the

absence of any calculations money decree of such a huge amount cannot be

fastened upon the respondent no.1. This claim is therefore rejected.


4.           The next claim raised by the petitioner is towards leave

encashment. Petitioner claims leave encashment for 240 days. Respondent

no.1 has given leave encashment for 138 days. Respondent no.1 states that

the petitioner only had 138 days of unutilized leave and therefore petitioner
WPC 6156/1998                                                          Page 2 of 6
 has been granted benefit accordingly. Nothing has been averred in the

rejoinder-affidavit as to how the petitioner does not have unutilized leave of

more than 138 days. Therefore, I do not find any reason to give leave

encashment pay of 240 days instead of 138 days for which the petitioner has

been paid.


5.           It may be noted that petitioner was re-employed by the

respondent no.1 in accordance with the extant rules, and for the period of re-

employment a total of 58 days leave encashment was due to the petitioner,

and for which days also the petitioner has been made the necessary payment.

This claim of the petitioner is also therefore rejected.


6.           The next claim of the petitioner is towards an amount of

`4376.11 allegedly on the ground that petitioner had deposited the amount

under Compulsory Deposit Scheme in the years 1975-1977, but this amount

has not been refunded to the petitioner. It may be noted that at no point of

time before filing of this writ petition the petitioner ever made a grievance

that this amount was due and has not been paid. Also, this writ petition is

filed in the year 1998 and a claim with respect to amounts deposited in 1975

to 1977 i.e around 22 years earlier, and hence would become difficult to

resolve inasmuch as, respondent no.1 states that the relevant record does not

WPC 6156/1998                                                       Page 3 of 6
 exist. I also doubt that there is any merit in the claim of the petitioner

because if really this amount of ` 4376.11 was due, petitioner immediately

after the Compulsory Deposit Scheme amount became due but the same

having not been paid to the petitioner, would have addressed her grievance

to the respondent no.1, and which admittedly has not been done. This claim

is also therefore rejected.


7.           The next claim of the petitioner is that on her re-employment

the respondent no.1 wrongly deducted an amount of `1198 per month.

Petitioner claims this amount for the period of re-employment. Respondent

no.1 in the counter-affidavit has stated the fact that this amount per month

was deducted because salary of the petitioner was fixed for the period of re-

employment in terms of the University's letter dated 20.1.1992, and which

deduction was directed to be made by the University because petitioner on

her retirement, before her being re-employed, had received amount towards

the contribution to provident fund. Therefore, in such circumstances, the

pay which was to be fixed of the petitioner for re-employment, was to be

deducted by ` 1198/- on account of pension equivalent of CPF. Therefore,

in my opinion, once a specific pay has been fixed by reducing an amount of

` 1198/- pursuant to direction of the University to which the respondent

WPC 6156/1998                                                      Page 4 of 6
 no.1-college is affiliated, petitioner cannot claim to have valid grievance.

This claim is therefore rejected.


8.           The last claim which is prayed before me is for payment

towards LTC for a sum of ` 6052/-. This claim is made by relying on the

Rule that if petitioner could not visit her home town because of

circumstances beyond control, due to which the destination cannot be

reached, LTC will have to be paid. A reference to the ticket of travel of the

petitioner for Delhi to Madras shows that the same is for 19.5.1996.

Petitioner has relied upon a newspaper clipping of heavy rains, however

which is of much later date viz 15.6.1996. Petitioner therefore, in my

opinion, has not substantiated her claim on the ground that on 19.5.1996, she

could not travel to her home town on account of reasons beyond control. I

may also note that ticket in the present case was up to Madras (now

Chennai) although, the home town of the petitioner was Madurai. In any

case, petitioner having failed to prove the circumstances beyond control,

entitling her to claim LTC, therefore this claim cannot be allowed.


9.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the




WPC 6156/1998                                                         Page 5 of 6
 same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All

pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.




AUGUST 08, 2013                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib