- (1.) This Intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment of the Ld. Single Judge passed in CWP No.17987 of 2005 (O&M) dated 11.05.2015. By virtue of the impugned judgment, various orders passed by officials of the appellant (Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana) against the respondent were set aside and the University Authorities were directed to release all the retiral benefits of the respondent from the date of his retirement till its payment, apart from the amount already deducted from the retiral dues along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
(2.) The background of the matter is that the Writ Petitioner/Respondent, who had initially joined as a Sectional Officer in the Respondent/University on 7.12.1970, after being promoted during his service there, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2002. He was granted Provisional Pension with effect from 1.4.2002, after his order of superannuation had been issued four days earlier. His retiral dues were, however, withheld, on account of which, he issued a Legal Notice upon the University/Authorities followed by Civil Writ Petition No. 9411 of 2004 for release of the same. It was disposed of by this Court on 12.7.2004 with a direction upon the respondents to take a decision on the Legal Notice by passing a Speaking Order within a period of two months. Consequently, the claim for retiral benefits was rejected by respondent No. 4 on behalf of the University, vide his communication dated 16.9.2004, purportedly in compliance of the order dated 12.7.2004. In the aforesaid communication (Annexure-C), reference was made to various correspondences purportedly issued from the Office of Executive Engineer (C-II), and other allied offices, and the claim for retiral benefits was ultimately rejected with the following notings - "In view of the facts and circumstances explained above you are yourself responsible for the delay in release of your retiral benefits. As per rule 5.6 of Manual of Orders, the Sectional Officers/Junior Engineer is responsible for the execution of work and rendering its account in time. Thus by not rendering the accounts of the works got executed by you in the capacity of the Sectional Officer/Junior Engineer and by not returning the official record viz measurement books, MAS Registers, Indent books etc., you have failed to discharge your legitimate duties. By not performing your legitimate duties, you have rendered yourself liable for disciplinary/legal action and forfeited your right to retiral benefits. Therefore, you are not entitled for any relief in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, your case can be reconsidered, provided you submit the accounts of all the works/imprest and also return the official record, otherwise the University authorities shall be compelled to proceed legally against you."
(3.) The petitioner/respondent in challenging the aforesaid order of rejection passed by respondent No.4 filed the next Writ Petition (CWP No. 17987 of 2005), in which, he specifically claimed that he had already rendered the necessary accounts, which fact was even noted by the Vice Chancellor of the University. The relevant specific claims made by the petitioner/respondent in this regard, as narrated in Para 17(vi) of the Writ Petition, are set down below - "That the petitioner was served upon a notice to render the accounts of works executed by him. On 22.04.1989 petitioner was given one month more time by the Vice Chancellor, PAU to render the accounts. The Vice Chancellor on 14.12.2000 perused the reply of the petitioner and categorically observed that "the perusal of the file shows that Sh. Bhargav has rendered the accounts of all the advances taken by him as Section Officer and it has been confirmed by the Estate Officer as has been indicated at page 242 NP". In view of this Sh. Birla becomes entitled for the grant of Senior Scale of Rs.3000-45 with immediate effect from due date, but no such recommendation has been made specifically. The petitioner has inspected the files from the office. The record showing the passing of these orders by the Estate Officer and Vice Chancellor (which are reproduced herein above) may be verified by summoning the record from the University itself. That from the perusal of the orders passed by the Estate Officer and Vice Chancellor, it is crystal clear that the petitioner had already rendered the accounts pertaining to the year 1970-1974 while working as Sectional Officer. Thus the present proceedings initiated by the officials time and again asking the petitioner to render the accounts for the same period is actuated with mala-fide just to deprive the petitioner from his retiral benefits. The relevant part of the proceedings are annexed as Annexure P-18.";