- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) IN spite of the case being adjourned on the last date also on the ground of nonappearance of the counsel for the respondent no.3 and the fact that the respondents had appeared on notice earlier and filed their counter affidavit, no one appears on behalf of private respondent to oppose the prayer made by the petitioner, hence, it is heard at this stage and being disposed of . The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of the Appellate Authority dated 5.9.2005 passed by the respondent no.1 and the original order passed by the Original Authority i.e. respondent no.2, Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), whereby the application filed by the respondent no.3employee for payment of gratuity, has been allowed, holding that he is entitled to receive the awarded amount of gratuity in spite of objection of the petitioneremployer that the employee concernedrespondent no.3 has not vacated the quarter even after his retirement and is liable to pay penal rent for the period of unauthorized occupation which is to be adjusted against the outstanding amount due to him on the head of gratuity which has been awarded by the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of Hon'ble Suprme Court of India in the case of Wazir ChandVs. Union of India reported in (2001) 6 SCC 596 in order to support his contention that an employee is liable to pay penal rent, in accordance with rules prescribed therefor, which is to be adjusted against the deathcum retirement dues of the said employee. The relevant paragraph is quoted hereinbelow: " These appeals are directed against the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the claim of the appellant, who happens to be a retired railway servant. Admittedly, the appellant even after superannuation continued to occupy the government quarters, though being placed under hard circumstances. For such continuance, the Government, in accordance with rules, has charged penal rent from the retired government servant, and after adjusting the dues of the Government, the balance amount of the gratuity, which was payable, has been offered to be paid, as noted in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appellant's main contention is that in view of the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal against which the Union of India had approached this Court and the special leave application was dismissed as withdrawn, it was the bounden duty of the Union of India not to withhold any gratuity amount and, therefore, the appellant would be entitled to the said gratuity amount on the date of retirement, and that not having been paid, he is also entitled to interest thereon. We are unable to accept this prayer of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The appellant having unauthorisedly occupied the government quarters was liable to pay the penal rent in accordance with rules and, therefore, there is no illegality in those dues being adjusted against the deathcumretirement dues of the appellant. We, therefore, see no illegality in the impugned order which requires our interference. The appeals stand dismissed."
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the petitioner employer is allowed liberty to adjust the penal rent due to the employeerespondent no.3 for the period of unauthorized occupation of his quarter from the outstanding post retirement dues of the employee's gratuity amount awarded by the impugned order. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition stands disposed of and the impugned orders are subject to the aforesaid modifications made herein.;