Back
2001 Supreme(Del) 367
High Court Of Delhi
CHANDER BHAN - Appellant
Versus
DELHI STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED - Respondent
Civil 417 of 1997
Decided On : 03/22/2001
S.L.GUPTA, Vinod Yadav
The central legal point established is the entitlement of an employee to enforce the statutory duty of a society to pay retiral benefits, and the applicability of writ jurisdiction in enforcing such duty.
Headnote:
retiral benefits - Payment Dispute - Societies Registration Act, A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, Banks Act of 1964 - The court discussed the statutory duty of a society to pay retiral benefits to an employee and the applicability of writ jurisdiction in enforcing such duty. It referenced the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision and the Supreme Court's decision in U. P. State coop. Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra bhan Dubey to establish the principles for enforcing statutory public duty against a society. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to enforce the statutory duty of the respondent bank to pay retiral benefits, and directed the respondent to pay the dues with interest.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Administrative Officer, sought payment of retiral benefits including gratuity, earned leave encashment, and salary. The respondent bank withheld the benefits citing unpaid loans sanctioned by the petitioner during his service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent bank unjustly withheld the retiral benefits of the petitioner without following due process, and held that the petitioner was entitled to enforce the statutory duty of the respondent bank to pay the benefits.
Issues: Dispute over payment of retiral benefits, applicability of writ jurisdiction to enforce statutory public duty against a society.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established the petitioner's entitlement to enforce the statutory duty of the respondent bank to pay retiral benefits, citing relevant legal principles and precedents.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondent was directed to pay all dues, including retiral benefits, to the petitioner within 8 weeks with interest if not paid within the specified period.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed, by the petitioner claiming payment of his retiral benefits including gratuity, cash in lieu of earned leave, bonus etc. and the salary for the period July 1989 to January 1990 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date it fell due to the date of its final payment.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the respondent bank in the year 1959 and he retired from the post of Administrative Officer Grade I on 21. 1. 2990. The petitioner served in different branches of the respondent bank on different posts and rendered his services in the bank till he was retired from service. It is stated that in spite of the fact that the petitioner retired from service he was not paid the retiral benefits including the gratuity, earned leave encashment, bonus and the salary for the period July 1989 to january 1990. It is contended that the aforesaid amount is not being paid by the respondents on the pretext that the loan amount sanctioned by the petitioner while working as Manager of Shahdara branch of the respondent bank to different loanees to the tune of Rs. 4. 70 lac could riot be recovered by the bank from the loanees.
( 3 ) THE respondent in its counter affidavit has taken up a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd. is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India and therefore, the said respondent is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner while working as Manager at Shahdara delhi branch of the respondent bank had mis-utilised his powers and granted clean overdrafts to such persons some of whom could not be identified. It is stated that the clean over draft granted by the petitioner was strictly against the norms settled by the respondent bank, because of which the/respondent has suffered huge loss. It was stated that the respondent bank found that the petitioner had granted clean over draft to the tune of Rs. 4,70,408. 80 which he is liable to get adjusted and despite repeated requests the petitioner failed to get the loan accounts adjusted. It is also stated that the case of the petitioner was considered at various levels and it was decided by the Competent Authority of the respondent bank not to release the terminal benefits of Rs. 1,56,507. 90 to the petitioner unless he gets adjusted the loans granted by him while working at Shahdara, Delhi branch of the respondent bank.
( 4 ) IN the context of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties it is established that the retiral benefits of the petitioner have not been released and paid. The said action is sought to be justified on the ground that so long the petitioner does not get adjusted the loans granted by him he could not be paid the terminal benefits of rs. 1,56,507. 90. The petitioner has retired from service and he is no longer in the service of the bank. He was allowed to retire from the service without drawing up any proceedings against him for any alleged misconduct. The petitioner granted the said loan in question while he was serving as an officer of the Bank and in case he had misconducted himself in discharge of his duties action could have been and should have been taken by the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. None of the procedure prescribed in accordance with law was followed by the respondents and they have arbitrarily recovered/appropriated/withheld the retiral benefits of the petitioner to which he is otherwise entitled to. Such recovery or adjustment without drawing up a proceeding in accordance with law is against all settled legal principles and is also without Jurisdiction.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent during the course of his arguments could not meet the aforesaid position and improve upon the situation stated hereinabove. He however, took up the stand-that the writ petition
