Delhi High Court
Sudershan Bhagra vs Delhi Cantt. Board on 20 March, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6574/2008
% 20th March, 2013
SUDERSHAN BHAGRA ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.C.Singhal, and Mr. Mridul Chawla,
Advocates.
VERSUS
DELHI CANTT. BOARD ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Satyarthi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks release of the entire
superannuation benefits and pension from the respondent-Delhi Cantt. Board.
Petitioner claims the release of the terminal benefits in spite of the fact that the
petitioner most contumaciously and obdurately has refused to vacate the
accommodation given to the petitioner by the respondent on account of
employment of the petitioner with the respondent, originally as a teacher and
thereafter as a Head Mistress. I note that the petitioner has retired way back on
30.11.2001, however she continues to hold the accommodation given to her during
her service and has not vacated the same in spite of proceedings under the Public
W.P.(C) 6574/2008 Page 1 of 4
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 being initiated.
Therefore, the petitioner now for over as long as 12 years, no less, after her
retirement continues to hold the residential accommodation, but yet claims that she
still should be paid the terminal benefits.
2. Before proceeding the facts of the case, I may note that the Supreme
Court in the case of Secretary, ONGC Ltd.& Anr. Vs V.U.Warrier (2005) 5 SCC
245 has held that an employer is fully justified to deduct gratuity payable to the
employee on account of penal rent which becomes due from an employee, who
after retirement does not vacate the official quarter allotted to him. The Supreme
Court has thus clearly permitted deducting of penal rent amount from the gratuity
payable. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Union of
India Vs. Sisir Kumar Deb 1999 SCC (L&S) 781 has allowed the employer to
deduct all dues payable by an employee and which arise on account of the
employee not vacating the government quarter after retirement. The dues were
held to be recoverable from the terminal benefits payable to the employee. The
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. K. Balakrishna Nambiar
1998 (2) SCC 706 has again held that no interest will be paid on withheld amount
of gratuity and which is rightly withheld as the employee illegally kept on holding
to the accommodation given to him by the employer during his service period. The
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Ujagar Lal (1996) 11 SCC 116
W.P.(C) 6574/2008 Page 2 of 4
has held that Railways is entitled to withhold the death cum retirement gratuity till
the retired employee surrendered the possession of the quarter allotted to him,
when the retired employee unauthorizedly retains the quarter. The Supreme Court
also held that since there was no delay in payment of gratuity, in such
circumstances, interest on gratuity withheld was also not payable.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments to
argue the proposition that an employee can continue to hold a residential
accommodation given during service and in spite of not vacating the same, the
employee is entitled to the terminal benefits. Reliance is placed upon the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. R.R.Hingorani
AIR 1987 SC 808 and an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court
dated 3.11.1999 in C.W.P. No. 4032/1997 titled as Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Ex-
Draftman Grade-I Vs. Delhi Cantonment Board, Delhi Cantt.
4. So far as the judgment in the case of R.R.Hingorani (supra) relied
upon by the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same does not at all deal
with the issue as to the entitlement of an employee to be paid the terminal benefits
while continuing to illegally hold the residential accommodation even after
retirement. The Supreme Court was in this judgment dealing with Section 11 of
the Pension Act, 1871 and which provision pertains to exemption of pension from
attachment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court in that case has held that recovery
W.P.(C) 6574/2008 Page 3 of 4
from the retiremental dues of the employee in the form of the penal rent was
illegal. In the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of
Gurdeep Singh (supra), the learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment in
the case of R.R.Hingorani (supra) and has directed the payment of the pension
cum gratuity and retirement benefits. I may however note that the judgment of the
learned Single Judge is only an order of two pages relying upon the judgment of
R.R.Hingorani (supra) and it does not refer to the four judgments of the Supreme
Court referred to above, and which shows that an employer is entitled to continue
to hold the terminal benefits in case an employee refuses to vacate the official
accommodation which was given at the time of service.
5. In view of the above, there is therefore no merit in the petition, which
is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
MARCH 20, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
