- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Heard Dr. L. A. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the orders dated 28. 1. 2004 and 13. 1. 2004 passed by the re spondents No. 3 and 2, respectively, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same and also has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund Rs. 25000, amount of gratu ity, withheld, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is not disputed that during the pendency of the writ petition the re spondents have paid a sum of Rs. 19185 to the petitioner towards alleged withheld gratuity after deducting Rs. 5815, pursuant to the two orders which are impugned in this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the aforesaid deduc tion is wholly illegal and unauthorised, inasmuch as he has not taken any loan and yet amount of Rs. 5815 has been deducted from his gratuity illegally. He has also placed reliance on a Single Judge judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam Dixit v. State of U. P. and others 2006 (110) FLR 101 (Alld ). .
(3.) HOWEVER, I do not find any force in the submission for the reason that it is evident from record that an inquiry was conducted by the office of Finance and Accountants, Regional Audit Cell IV Region, Allahabad wherein it was found that a sum of Rs. 5015 was taken by the petitioner from the College Library Fund which was payable alongwith interest and, therefore, he has to pay a sum of Rs. 5815 to the College Library Fund. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued notice for depositing the said amount. The petitioner having failed to deposit the same, the said amount was deducted from his gratuity amount and balance amount of Rs. 19185 has been paid to him. The judgment cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner does not help him for the reason that in the entire writ petition there is no averment whatsoever that the amount of Rs. 5815 has been deducted from his gratuity without conducting any inquiry whatsoever against the petitioner. On the contrary, it is evident from the record that the Special Audit Cell conducted inquiry and submitted its report whereafter the petitioner was communicated the said report and he also sub mitted reply thereto. In the circumstances apparent, I do not find any invalid ity in deduction of Rs. 5815 from the gratuity amount of petitioner and to that extent no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Since during the pendency of the matter, rest of the amount Rs. 19185has already been paid to the petitioner, the only question require to be consid ered is whether the petitioner is entitled for any interest on the delayed pay ment of Rs. 19185.;