Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) NON -compliance of the order dated 14.03.2011, passed by this Court has been alleged in this contempt petition. Thereunder this Court had held that withholding of pension, gratuity and leave encashment due to the petitioner on his retirement without any legal foundation could not be sustained and reliance upon Ordinance 357 -C of the University of Rajasthan Ordinance was untenable. In the operative portion of the order dated 14.03.2011, while consequentially setting aside the order dated 20.01.2009 passed by respondent -University, the Court observed that "if punishment of withholding of retiral benefits or other punishment cannot be imposed under the rules applicable to the University employees, respondents are expected not to commit same illegality."
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner and the petitioner present in person have submitted that the pension of the petitioner has been released. They however submit that leave encashment to which the petitioner is entitled as also due gratuity is not being paid to him. No inquiry has been conducted by the University to determine any loss caused to the University for action/s attributable to the petitioner. It is submitted that the nonpayment of amount due under the leave encashment and gratuity therefore constitutes contempt of the order dated 14.03.2011, passed by this Court. Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sunita Pareek, appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to Chapter XLV of University of Rajasthan handbook, Part -II, Volume -III at page 131 dealing with provisions for payment of gratuity. He submits that as a first condition for payment of gratuity, it has been provided that it shall be payable at the discretion of the Vice Chancellor to an employee on his rendering satisfactory service to the University till the date he attains the age of superannuation or the date of retirement after extension, or his death while in service, or on termination of service otherwise then on dismissal. The proviso to the condition -1 aforesaid further states that the amount payable to an employee "under these rules" shall be reduced by an amount equal to the value of any loss or damage to University property including money caused on account of negligence or criminal offence, or on account of contributory negligence of the University's employee resulting in any loss. It has been submitted that the petitioner was engaged as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with the University of Rajasthan and in the estimation of the Vice Chancellor for the purpose of exercising his discretion with regard to payment of gratuity it was found that the petitioner's inaction and dereliction of duty occasioned levy of penalty by RSEB on the University for overdrawing on electricity i.e. using electricity more than the sanctioned load. Counsel submits that the condition in the order dated 14.03.2011 passed by this Court that the retrial amount due to the petitioner shall not be withheld without any legal basis, thus stands satisfied with regard to the non -payment of gratuity.
(3.) MR . Hemant Tailor, counsel for the petitioner, submits that no inquiry has been held against the petitioner for determination of the amount of loss occasioned to the University by the alleged dereliction of duty by the petitioner. He further submits that in this view of the matter even with reference to condition No. 1 for payment of gratuity, gratuity could not have been withheld. He further submits that the petitioner is not at all responsible for the levy of penalty by RSEB on the University for overdrawing of electricity in excess of the sanctioned load. Counsel further submits that in any event of the matter, there is no provision under the University of Rajasthan Ordinances for withholding of encashment of leave to which an employee is entitled.;