Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for directing the respondents to release his post retiral benefits viz. monthly pension, commutation of pension, gratuity, provident fund and G.S.L.I. etc. with interest and for restraining the respondents from making any recovery from the retiral benefits of the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts necessary and relevant for deciding the controversy at hand are that the petitioner was appointed as Apprentice Officer in the respondent company on 1.9.1977. Upon completing one year's training, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Administrative Officer on probation vide order dated 1.8.1978. The Government of India floated a scheme named as General Insurance (Officers) Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as SVRS) for all permanent full time officers who had attained the age of 40 years and had completed 10 years of qualifying service. The petitioner opted for SVRS on 12.1.2004 and agreed to vacate the Company owned residential accommodation/leased accommodation within two months from the date of being relieved. The petitioner also authorized the Company to recover and adjust all loans/dues etc. payable by him to the Company from his terminal benefits including ex -gratia. The petitioner claims that he was informed by the General Manager regarding the acceptance of his application for SVRS after office hours on 12.3.2004 through an order Annexure -3. By the said order, the petitioner was directed to surrender all the material assets/documents received from the Company. The petitioner was relieved and handed over charge on 12.3.2004 after office hours. The petitioner has asserted in the instant writ petition that as per S.V.R.S, the petitioner is entitled to ex -gratia i.e. salary for the number of months of remaining service, provident fund, gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act or the gratuity payable under the Rationalisation Scheme or pension (including the commuted value of pension) as per General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 and leave encashment. It is further mentioned in the writ petition that a portion of the ex -gratia and leave encashment amounts were paid to the petitioner after some time of his retirement but approximately Rs. 16.50 lacs falling due to the petitioner towards arrears of pension, provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, ex -gratia payment, GSLI and regular monthly pension have been withheld by the Company without any justification. The petitioner submitted a representation Annexure -5 dated 5.8.2004 to the authorities requesting them to release his withheld retiral benefits. The petitioner was informed by a communication dated 30.11.2004 that he had not submitted the requisite original documents for GSLI (Group Saving Link Insurance) claim and for this reason the GSLI claim could not be released in his favour. However, regarding the remaining retiral dues of the petitioner, the communication was absolutely silent. The petitioner again sent a reminder dated 27.2.2005 requesting the respondents to release all his retiral benefits i.e. Gratuity, Provident Fund, GSLI and Pension etc. but the same was not responded to. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition praying for the above mentioned relief. The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition wherein it is asserted that the claim of the petitioner that he applied for voluntary retirement under the SVRS in a bonafide manner is absolutely false and frivolous. When the petitioner sought SVRS, he was aware that certain audit queries were outstanding against him and that is why, a part of the retiral dues of the petitioner were withheld. The audit queries were communicated to the petitioner but the petitioner has deliberately concealed these facts while filing this writ petition. Reliance is placed in the reply upon general condition 8(ix) of the SVRS and it is asserted that as per the said condition, all payments under this scheme and any other benefits payable to an officer are subject to prior settlements or repayment or adjustment in full, of loans, advances, return of company's property and any other outstanding dues against him/her and payable by him or her to the company. It is submitted in the reply that the remaining payment of the petitioner's terminal benefits are pending against the non personal audit recoveries pointed out by the comptroller and auditor general (CAG audit). It is further asserted that a huge sum in relation to short collection of premium, irregular settlement of motor claim etc. is outstanding against the petitioner which are in the nature of his personal liabilities and thus are required to be settled and recovered from his retiral dues as per Clause 8(ix) of the SVRS. The action of the respondents in withholding further terminal benefits of the petitioner has been further justified with reference to the provisions of Chapter IX of General Insurance Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Along with the reply, certain documents including communication dated 13.11.1998 (Annex.R/2) have been annexed, more particularly the audit report of the year 1997, as per which numerous shortfalls in various cases of different parties insured with the Company have been pointed out. These short falls have been attributed to the petitioner.
(3.) HOWEVER , it is relevant to note here that the document Annexure R/2 appears to be in relation to three persons viz. present petitioner herein, Shri A.K. Jain and Shri R.K. Purohit. It is not clear from the document as to which portion of the alleged shortfalls is attributable to the petitioner. It is further relevant to mention here that the respondents have themselves filed a document Annexure R/6 with the reply, wherein answering to personal audit queries regarding the petitioner, the Regional Manager Mrs. Kamlesh Vashist was informed that she had attributed personal responsibility of Mr. Dayama in some of the audit queries and absolved his personal responsibility in other audit queries. She was directed to give a specific and unequivocal confirmation after thorough examination of all the facts and circumstances of the case as to whether personal responsibility could be attributed to Mr. Dayama for the above non personal underwritten audit query. In turn, the Regional Manager mentioned in the letter Annexure R/7 that she was constrained to personalize the query in the name of Mr. D.R. Dayama. However, the reasons for the personalization of the query in the petitioner's name has not been clarified.;