Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7333
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, Madhu Jain, JJ
ANIL KUMAR JAIN – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATION RESEARCH AND TRAINING – Respondent
W.P.(C) 5306/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Rajshekhar Rao, Ms.Aditi Gupta, Mr.Rajarshi Roy, Ms.Lavanya Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: Mr.Abhishek Saket, Mr.Manish Madhukar, Mr.Abhigyan, Ms.Reya Paul
The court upheld the withholding of gratuity for unauthorized occupation of government quarters, emphasizing compliance with relevant regulations.
Headnote:(A) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Central Civil Services (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2010 - Gratuity withholding - Petitioner challenged withholding of gratuity for unauthorized occupancy of government quarter post-retirement, asserting only 10% may be withheld according to CCS Rules, referring to R. Kapur and Dhanwant Rai Judgements that supported immediate payment of dues. (Paras 11, 12)
(B) The Tribunal ruled that ample notices regarding unauthorized occupation were issued, justifying the recovery of dues; extensive grounds were given for upholding the decision of withholding gratuity. (Paras 9, 10, 20)
(C) Delay in payment of released dues post-vacation must be remedied with applicable interest. (Paras 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner occupied government quarter beyond permitted duration after retirement, resulting in the withholding of gratuity dues.
Findings of Court:
Verification of lawful actions taken by respondents justifying withholding of dues due to unauthorized occupation.
Issues: Whether the withholding of gratuity violated CCS Rules and whether previous ruling prohibitions applied.
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling asserted that retention of dues for unauthorized occupation is permissible under applicable rules, as repeated notices were given.
Result: The petition is disposed with directives for interest payment due to delay in clearance of dues.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges withholding of gratuity due to unauthorized occupancy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. court details justification for withholding dues based on applicant’s conduct. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 19 , 24) |
| 3. legal counsel cites rules and previous rulings to assert petitioner's claim. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court acknowledges delay in payment of dues and mandates interest. (Para 26) |
1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Tribunal’), in O.A. No. 1156/2019, titled Shri Anil Kumar Jain v. National Council of Education Research and Training Through its Secretary & Anr., whereby the said O.A. filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed.
2. The petitioner had filed the above O.A. challenging the Orders dated 22.06.2015 and 28.02.2017 passed by the respondent no. 1- National Council of Educational Research and Training (in short, ‘NCERT’), withholding an amount of Rs.6,53,607/- from the gratuity amount payable to him on account of him retaining the residential quarter beyond the permissible time limit.
3. The petitioner had retired as an Assistant with the respondent no. 1 on 31.05.2011, upon attaining the age of superannuation. While in service, he was allotted Quarter No. Type III/73 in NIE Campus by NCERT with effect from 04.03.2005.
4. Although he superannuated and was liable to vacate the allotted quarter in terms of the applicable rules, he did not do so and sought further extension of time to retain the quarter owing to the medical condition of himself, his wife and his brother.
5. On the other hand, the respondents continued to issue eviction notices, also warning the petitioner that he would be liable to pay penalty charges for the unauthorised occupation of the government quarter. The petitioner was also warned that action under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘PP Act’) would be taken against him.
6. The petitioner eventually vacated the residential accommodation only on 07.05.2015. In the meantime, the respondents had released only around Rs. 4 lacs to the petitioner, out of the total claim amount of Rs.12 lacs towards retiral dues.
7. Subsequent to vacation of the government accommodation, it was only on 27.03.2017, that a further sum of Rs.1,17,953/- was released to the petitioner by the respondents, after adjusting the sum of Rs.6,53,607/- as damages for the unauthorised occupation of the accommodation.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had filed the above O.A. before the learned Tribunal.
9. As noted hereinabove, the learned Tribunal dismissed the O.A., observing as under:
“7. The applicant had joined at NCERT as LDC in the year 1975. He was also allotted quarter No. Type-III/73 in NIE Campus by the respondents w.e.f. 04.03.2005 and he continued to stay in the same quarter. He superannuated on 31.05.2011. However, as stated by him, on account of medical requirements, he continued to occupy the said quarter even after retirement. The respondents issued successive notices to him for vacating the said quarter and also indicating that failing which action shall be initiated against him under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 . Some of these notices are also placed on record including dated 03.05.2013, 06.01.2014, 28.05.2014 and the final notice dated 28.11.2014. All these notices clearly indicate that the said quarter No. Type-III/73 in NIE Campus, NCERT has not been vacated by the applicant. The applicant is in unauthorized occupation of the said accommodation, and that the Council has already cancelled the allotment of the quarter w.e.f. 01.10.2011. It is also clearly indicated in the notices that in case he fails to vacate the said quarter, further action will be taken to get the house vacated as per the provisions of Public Premises (E
