Vineet Saran - (1.) -On 9.5.1959, the petitioner joined the service as a Clerk in the Food and Civil Supplies Department of the Government of U. P. He was granted promotions from time to time and had held the posts of Marketing Inspector, Senior Marketing Inspector, Incharge Deputy Regional Marketing Officer and Regional Marketing Officer. After having served the department for more than 35 years, he retired on 31.1.1995. He submitted his pension papers on 5.5.1995 but due to non-furnishing of the 'no dues certificate', the petitioner was not paid his gratuity amount and certain other dues, for which he approached the pension adalat by way of filing an application. After hearing the parties, on 16.12.1998, the pension adalat directed the Regional Food Controller, Jhansi to issue the 'no dues certificate' within one month and also directed for payment of gratuity and other retiral dues to the petitioner. Still when the dues were not paid, the petitioner lodged a protest before the Regional Food Controller, Jhansi with the request to furnish the details, if any, of any amount said to be recoverable from him. When no response was received, the petitioner again approached the pension adalat. By order dated 5.7.1999, the pension adalat again directed the Regional Food Controller to make payment of the gratuity amount and commutation of pension etc. to the petitioner. It was at this stage that the petitioner received a letter dated 3.8.1999 issued by the Regional Food Controller stating therein that an amount of Rs. 2,57,610.73P. was sought to be recovered from him and hence the gratuity amount and other dues were not being paid to him. The petitioner has thus filed this writ petition challenging the said order dated 3.8.1999, and also a further prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue the 'no dues certificate' and pay the gratuity amount of over Rs. 47,000 as well as commutation of pension amounting to over Rs. 45,000 and the security amount of Rs. 2,000 alongwith 18%, with effect from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment.
(2.) BY way of amendment application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of an order dated 11.11.2002, passed by the Regional Food Controller, Jhansi during the pendency of this writ petition whereby it has been intimated that the gratuity amount of Rs. 43,164 has been sanctioned and after adjusting the same from the amount of Rs. 2,57,539 sought to be recovered, the balance amount of Rs. 2,14,375 remains to be recovered from the petitioner. Thus, the said order has also been challenged in this writ petition. I have heard Sri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel holding brief of Sri W. H. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The specific case of the petitioner is that at no stage during his service period or even thereafter, the petitioner had ever received any notice with regard to any departmental proceedings or proceedings for recovery having been initiated against him. The petitioner contends that he has been paid his G.P.F. amount and is also being paid his pension, but the amount of gratuity, as well as commutation of pension and security amounts have wrongly been withheld by the respondents, without assigning any reason.
(3.) IN the counter-affidavit, the respondents have merely stated that a sum of Rs. 2,57,000 and odd is sought to be recovered from the petitioner. The said plea came to light for the first time in the year 1999. From 1995 to 1999 the respondents had never sent any communication to the petitioner nor intimated the pension adalat in the year 1998 when such protest regarding non-payment of his dues was lodged by the petitioner. Had there been any order for recovery passed against the petitioner earlier, the same ought to have been filed before the pension adalat, which was seized of the matter on an application filed by the petitioner in the year 1998. After the filing of the counter-affidavit by the respondents, since nothing material was stated therein, on 10.7.2001, this Court directed the respondents 'to file supplementary counter-affidavit enclosing the copies of the orders by which liability of the petitioner has been fixed in respect of the amount in question.' IN response thereto, a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed in which it has merely been stated that certain notices for recovery of amount of Rs. 4,000 and odd, 2 lacs and odd and 3,000 and odd had been sent to the petitioner and some other employees, for having committed certain lapses. Such notices are said to have been sent in the years 1992 and 1994 but no copies of such notices have been enclosed alongwith the counter-affidavit nor has any order pursuant to such notices been filed requiring the petitioner to deposit any amount. Since the respondents did not disclose about passing of any orders in the counter-affidavit earlier, this Court had specifically directed the respondents to enclose copies of the orders by which liability of the petitioner had been fixed in respect of the amount in question sought to be recovered from him. It is very surprising that the respondent-authorities have not come forward with clean hands and have just been evading the issue and have not even filed copies of the alleged showcause notices or any specific orders relating to recovery of any amount from the petitioner. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, it has been stated that 'no departmental action of such reprimand was ever intimated against the petitioner rather his work and conduct was throughout highly appreciated and praised by his superiors.' The reply to this has been given in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit, wherein it has merely been stated that the said averments are not admitted as written. Without the respondents specifying as to whether any departmental action was ever taken against the petitioner or that his work and conduct had not been proper during his service tenure, the averments made in paragraph 3 of the writ petition would be taken as correct. Even otherwise, the respondents have not even stated that at any stage, any departmental proceedings or enquiry was initiated against the petitioner with regard to his conduct or with regard to recovery of any amount. Thus, the withholding of the dues of the petitioner for such frivolous reasons is highly unreasonable and deprecated by this Court. A retired employee who has given prime years of his life in the service of the department is entitled under law for payment of his retiral dues immediately on his retirement so that he may be able to live with dignity even after his retirement.;