MIHIR KUMAR ROY Vs. AGARTALA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.305 of 2014 seeking directions inter-alia for releasing the pension and other retiral benefits w.e.f. 01.11.2003 inasmuch as the petitioner had retired from the post of Executive Engineer under Agartala Municipal Corporation on 31.10.2003 afternoon. The said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 17.12.2014 on observing that the benefits of the pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner ought to have been released on his retirement. But since that was not done despite numerous representations, Agartala Municipal Corporation Ltd.-respondents were directed to release the pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a period of 3three. months from the date of judgment with interest @12% per annum w.e.f. 01.09.2003 till such payment is made. The other reliefs were not pressed by the petitioner in that writ petition.

(2.) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has urged to quash the sanction order No.692-95/VII-39170 dated 11.11.2014 issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Agartala Municipal Corporation Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition. It has been further urged to direct the respondents to release/sanction full and final payment of gratuity in favour of the petitioner with interest @12% per annum w.e.f. 01.04.2003. The petitioner has averred that by the sanction order dated 11.11.2014, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as pension and 75% of the total gratuity payable to the petitioner was sanctioned and from the said amount, a sum of Rs.1,06,431/- has been shown to be outstanding dues on the following heads:

(3.) In terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 the petitioner was entitled to get the gratuity within 30 days from the date of retirement but that was not done. Now, even though they have released 75% of the gratuity but out of that, deduction of sum of Rs.1,06,431/- has been made inappropriately inasmuch as the petitioner has claimed that he had no outstanding dues which might have warranted recovery. The petitioner has stated that Rs.35,400/- was sanctioned to him as a house building loan by the letter dated 11.09.1995 issued by the Accounts Officer, Agartala Municipal Corporation. Out of the total loan amount of Rs.35,400/- , a sum of Rs.17,395/- had been recovered from his salary during the period from 31.03.1979 to 31.08.1985. The petitioner has further stated that "the rest amount of house building loan had been also recovered from his monthly salary". In support of that claim, according to the petitioner, he had submitted the pay slip to the respondents. By a letter dated 05.05.2015, it had been asserted by the petitioner that a sum of Rs.45,000/- which was given to him as HUDCO loan was repaid by him by 108 monthly instalments. That apart, Rs.12,000/- was given to him as the general advance but his total expenditure was Rs.13,373/- and as such, there cannot be any question of outstanding due. The petitioner has further asserted that even on the account of Leave Travel Concession LTC. advance that was taken by him has been adjusted with the final bill. So far the Sulabh loan is concerned, the petitioner has paid the entire loan amount. Thus, the deduction of a sum of Rs.1,06,431/- is grossly untenable. Hence, the petitioner did not accept the cheque of Rs.43,569/- which was tendered to him. The respondents did not make any response to his letter dated 05.05.2015. Despite that they had deducted the said amount from his due amount of gratuity. The petitioner has submitted that even though the entire HUDCO loan was repaid, an outstanding of Rs.11,397/- has been shown as outstanding against the HUDCO loan see the table above. The petitioner, to buttress his contention, has further stated that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in W.P.(C) No.305 of 2014, there was no whisper of any outstanding against him. Even there was no contemplation of deducting any outstanding due from his gratuity. The petitioner has however admitted that by the order dated 14.05.2015 Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition. the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Agartala Municipal Corporation accorded a sum of Rs.22,733/- as the refund of excess recovery from the provisional retirement gratuity of the petitioner. It would indicate that the entire deduction was based on no foundation. Finally, the petitioner has stated that no part of gratuity can be taken away by the respondents on the ground of recovery of outstanding dues. Even though the petitioner had served a demand notice dated 03.08.2015 Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition. but the respondents did not release the full and final payment of the gratuity without deduction, to which the petitioner was entitled. Having made a reference to Section 23 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 it has been stoutly contended by the petitioner that no amount can be recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner. 4. The respondents by filing the reply have acceded that for inaccurate calculation, an excess amount to the extent of Rs.22,733/- was deducted wrongly. The said amount was refunded to the petitioner but the petitioner refused to accept the said amount. On the fresh calculation, the petitioner had the liability as described below: