Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) In this case the petitioners are the heiress, heirs and legal representatives of one late Manindra Kumar Guha (hereinafter referred to as the said official) who was an official of the respondent no.1. The said official retired from his services on 30th september 1987. During his lifetime the said official did not get his retiral dues in spite of repeated demand and request. The respondent authorities did not take any action to release all the dues of the said official. After his death provident fund amount was released to the petitioners, however, the other dues were not released. Therefore, the petitioners are claiming Writ of Mandamus upon the respondents for release of the rest of the retiral dues which are due and payable along with interest @ 18% per annum.
(2.) In the affidavit-in-opposition the respondent has sought to justify withholding of the rest of the retiral dues contending that the respondent has been exposed to financial liability because of refusal of the said official to vacate the residential accommodation given during his service period. The rental accommodation was obtained from a private owner and by reason of such refusal the landlady. viz., one Smt. Jayanti Mukherjee filed a suit for eviction wherein a decree has been passed for eviction as well as for mesne profit. A sum of rupees merely 95 thousand appears to be decretal dues which may have to be discharged by the respondent no. 1 in the event the appeal preferred against the said decree by the said landlady succeeds. It is also contended in the affidavit-in-opposition in order to procure vacant possession of the said residential accommodation the respondent company had to initiate criminal prosecution under section 630 of the Companies Act 1956 on which the said official was convicted and also directed to vacate the peaceful possession of the flat in question to the company being the complainant by an order dated 16th February, 1995 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore.
(3.) Mrs. U.B. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing with Mr. Prasad Bagchi and Ms. Nivedita Mukherjee, learned Advocates in support of their writ petition contends that retiral benefits payable to the said official cannot be withheld by the employer in connection with the alleged dues and liabilities arising out of a residential accommodation provided in course of employment and these alleged dues have arisen after his service has come to an end. This does not relate to nor does have any connection and/ or nexus and/ or relation to his service condition. Her clients being the lawful claimants of the retiral dues are entitled to get interest @ 18% per annum in the event this Court decides in favour of her clients.;