JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.:

Heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate.

2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: –

“That the instant writ application is for the issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the Appellate order dated 27.12.2004 (Annexure-7) passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3) and the Order dated 30.04.2004 passed by the Respondent No. 2(Annexure-5) whereby and whereunder the claim of the Respondent No. 4 relating to payment of Gratuity to her deceased husband, who had been dismissed from service on 15.06.90 and despite specific direction to handover possession of quarter, had continued to occupy the quarter which was ultimately vacated after 8 years that on 19.10.2001 has been allowed holding with the adjustment of penal rent of the quarter by the Central Coalfields Limited, is unauthorised and accordingly a direction has been issued for payment of the Gratuity Amount of Rs. 43,604.40 with interest @6% from the date of filing of the application in Form ‘N’; as also for the issuance of such other writ, order or direction as may appear just and proper for doing equitable justice to the petitioner.”

Arguments of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was dismissed on 15.06.1990 and thereafter he died on 26.06.1993. He further submits that the matter regarding dismissal of the husband of the petitioner was subject matter of arbitration and an award dated 14.02.1997 was passed wherein it was observed that there were some illegalities in the matter of termination but the learned Arbitrator did not choose to reinstate the husband of the petitioner, rather directed for payment of gratuity by calculating one month's salary for each year till his age of superannuation.

5. The learned counsel submits that thereafter a petition was filed before the Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and the specific case of the petitioner before the Authority was that the petitioner is entitled for penal rent for the period the private respondent had retained the quarter. He has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2001) 6 SCC 596 (Wazir Chand v. Union of India) and he submits that the penal rent is adjustable against death cum retiral dues. He has also relied upon a judgment passed by this court passed in L.P.A. No. 15 of 2013 and submits that this court has upheld the power of the Authority to deduct penal rent from the payable gratuity amount.

6. Learned counsel has also submitted that a notice dated 21.09.2001 was issued to the private respondent quantifying the penal rent as Rs. 1,78,160/- stating that the same was adjustable against the gratuity payable to the husband of the private respondent and she was directed to evict the quarter. Learned counsel has also relied upon one more judgment passed in the case of Project Officer v. Regional Labour Commissioner, Central in W.P. (C) No. 2178 of 2006 decided on 23.07.2012 wherein this court while referring to the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wazir Chand has held that the employer is at liberty to adjust the penal rent due to the employee for the period of unauthorized occupation of his quarter from the outstanding post retiral dues of the employees gratuity amount. Learned counsel has relied upon another judgment reported in (2005) 5 SCC 245 para No. 17, to submit that there is a right to effect recovery of dues from any officer without his consent from gratuity.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are two points involved in the present case. Firstly, once the employee was terminated, no gratuity at all was payable and secondly if any amount was payable the penal rent was adjustable. Operative porti