- (1.) The controversy involved in the present writ petition is a short one. The petitioner was admittedly an employee of the Allahabad Bank, Civil Lines, Gorakhpur and he has retired from service in the year 1977. The petitioner has not been paid his pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits inspite of his having been retired from service as far back as in the year 1977. He has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release forthwith the gratuity, pension, provident fund and all other retirement benefits along with interest.
(2.) In response to the notice issued by this Court, respondent Allahabad Bank has filed a counter affidavit and has mainly contended that despite the petitioner having retired from service in the year 1977, the petitioner has not vacated the Bank premises and is continuing to live in the Bank premises. The petitioner has himself given an undertaking to the Bank that his retirement benefits should be given to him on his vacating the premises. On the basis of this undertaking, the petitioner has not been paid his retirement benefits. It has been contended in the counter affidavit that as soon as the petitioner vacates the premises. The retirement benefits will be given to him. The undertaking given by the petitioner has been filed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit.
(3.) The right of a person to get retirement benefits in accordance with the Rules does not depend on that person's vacating the premises of the employer occupied by him. It is also true that an employee does not have any right to continue to live in the employer's accommodation after his retirement. The two matters are independent of each other. However, an employee can be permitted to over stay for a reasonable period in the employer's accommodation for making an alternative arrangement, but an employee also cannot insist that he will not vacate the premises unless he has been paid his retirement benefits. It is open to the employer to get the premises vacated by the employee after his retirement unless the rule provides otherwise. A Division Bench of this Court has taken a view. "It is true that pension, gratuity etc. are the properties of the employees and they are entitled to be given these benefits after their retirement. Unless law provides otherwise, it is not open to the employer to withhold the payment of the post retirement benefits of the employees. But it is also equally true that it is not open to any employee to retain the property of the employer after retirement of which he is not entitled under law. Just as the University cannot withhold the payment of pensionary benefits etc., the petitioner is not entitled to keep the University accommodation in his occupation after his retirement....." See Daya Shanker Lal v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad & others, 1992 1 UPLBEC 654.;