2000 JTR(SC) 1516
2001 AIR(SCW) 5098 ; 2001 AIR(SCW) 509802 ; 2000 87 FLR 778 ; 2000 Supp1 JT 515 ; 2000 1 LLJ 603 ; 2001 1 LLJ 603 ; 2001 3 LLN 822 ; 2001 6 SCC 596 ; 2001 SCC(L&S) 1038 ; 2000 7 SLT 359 ; 2001 KHC 3923 ; 2001 1 KLT(Online) 1008 ; 2001 2 Supreme 447
2001(2) Supreme 447
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. Pattanaik & U.C. Banerjee, JJ.
Wazir Chand -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5195-5197 of 1998
Decided on 14-9-2000
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The Service Law provisions apply to the case of a retired Railway servant who, after superannuation, continued to occupy a Government quarter under hard circumstances, thereby incurring penal rent as per the Rules. The adjustment of such dues against death-cum-retirement benefits and the denial of gratuity in this scenario are evaluated in light of the Full Bench precedent within the Tribunal, shaping the Union of Indias obligation and the appellants entitlements under the Service regulations.
(B) Key legal principles include the liability of a retired servant for penal rent upon unauthorized continued occupation of Government quarters, the permissible adjustment of such arrears against due retirement benefits, and the non-obligation to pay gratuity when offsetting pre-existing dues. The case also underscores the finality of Tribunal orders and the limited scope of interference upon Special Leave Petitions.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a retired Railway servant, continued to occupy a Government quarter after retirement under hard circumstances. The Government imposed penal rent in accordance with the Service Rules, adjusted the dues from the appellants death-cum-retirement gratuity, and offered the balance to the appellant. The appellant contended that gratuity should have been paid in full without set-off, citing a prior Full Bench decision.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal and the court found that the appellant was liable for penal rent for unauthorized continued occupation, and that the set-off of these dues against the gratuity was legally valid. The court rejected the appellants contention for full gratuity payment and interest, affirming the legality of the impugned order.
Issues:
Whether the Union of India was bound to pay full gratuity without set-off for penal rent; whether the appellant is entitled to interest on gratuity; whether the Tribunals order suffers from illegality.
Ratio Decidendi:
The appellants unauthorized occupation of Government quarters rendered him liable for penal rent under the Rules, and the adjustment of such legally due amounts against retirement benefits does not constitute illegality, thereby upholding the impugned order.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed.
(A) The Service Law provisions apply to the case of a retired Railway servant who, after superannuation, continued to occupy a Government quarter under hard circumstances, thereby incurring penal rent as per the Rules. The adjustment of such dues against death-cum-retirement benefits and the denial of gratuity in this scenario are evaluated in light of the Full Bench precedent within the Tribunal, shaping the Union of Indias obligation and the appellants entitlements under the Service regulations.
(B) Key legal principles include the liability of a retired servant for penal rent upon unauthorized continued occupation of Government quarters, the permissible adjustment of such arrears against due retirement benefits, and the non-obligation to pay gratuity when offsetting pre-existing dues. The case also underscores the finality of Tribunal orders and the limited scope of interference upon Special Leave Petitions.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a retired Railway servant, continued to occupy a Government quarter after retirement under hard circumstances. The Government imposed penal rent in accordance with the Service Rules, adjusted the dues from the appellants death-cum-retirement gratuity, and offered the balance to the appellant. The appellant contended that gratuity should have been paid in full without set-off, citing a prior Full Bench decision.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal and the court found that the appellant was liable for penal rent for unauthorized continued occupation, and that the set-off of these dues against the gratuity was legally valid. The court rejected the appellants contention for full gratuity payment and interest, affirming the legality of the impugned order.
Issues:
Whether the Union of India was bound to pay full gratuity without set-off for penal rent; whether the appellant is entitled to interest on gratuity; whether the Tribunals order suffers from illegality.
Ratio Decidendi:
The appellants unauthorized occupation of Government quarters rendered him liable for penal rent under the Rules, and the adjustment of such legally due amounts against retirement benefits does not constitute illegality, thereby upholding the impugned order.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed.
ORDER
These appeals are directed against the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant, who happens to be a retired Railway servant. Admittedly, the appellant even after superannuation, continued to occupy the Government quarter, 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 tratity, which was payable, has been offered to be paid, as noted in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appellants 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 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 quarter, was liable to pay the penal rent in accordance with Rules, and therefore; there is no illegality in those dues being adjusted against the death-cum-retirement dues of the appellant. We, therefore, see no illegality in the impugned order which requires our interence. The appeals stand dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
***************