The court allowed a CWP regarding back arrears of retiral dues. It directed the respondent university to pay additional amounts due to miscalculation in provident fund credits and disapproved certain unauthorized deductions.
Respondents to return Rs. 1,30,542/- with interest@9% from date of retirement (30.9.2001).
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 13886 of 2005 Date of decision: February 17, 2012
Prof. Chaman Lal Aggarwal
Petitioner
Versus
Panjab University and others
Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Mr. Angel Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for the respondents
K. KANNAN, J. (ORAL)
C.W.P. No. 13886 of 2005
2
including employers' contribution upto the age of 60 years with one year interest and the petitioner's own contribution for the subsequent two years after the age of 60 years had also been included as Rs. 61,667/-, and, therefore, the total amount that has been credited to the petitioners account was Rs. 8,92,671/-. The obvious mistake is that the respondents have not credited the employer's own contribution to the petitioner's account for the extension of service that he further obtained for the period of two years. Consequently, the amount that must have been credited to him was actually Rs. 10,10,051/- and an amount of Rs. 1,17,380/- was still payable to the petitioner. Apart from this, the deduction which had been made to the petitioner's entitlement was an amount Rs. 2,94,975/- by way of recoveries of the alleged over staying of the premises and the amount that was determined by the Estate Officer in the proceedings under Public Premises Act. It is contention of the respondent that the order passed under the Act was not challenged by the petitioner subsequently and it had become final. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would join issue on this by stating that he had vacated the premises even earlier and that would be seen from the fact that water connection had been cut even earlier and the assessment of Rs. 2,04,975/- was not proper and in any event it could not have been deducted from his retiral dues. I would not allow this contention to prevail in favour of the petitioner, since the amount determined was not the respondents own assessment but it was done by an authority constituted under the Public Premises
C.W.P. No. 13886 of 2005
3
Act and if it had become final, the deduction made for an amount in which the petitioner was liable to be debited was perfectly justified. However, the respondents had withheld an additional amount of Rs. 2,672/- for alleged advance taken for attending conference in the year 1984. The petitioner has retired in the year 2001 and an amount alleged to have been taken as an advance in the year 1984 can not become matter of adjustment out of his retiral dues. Similarly another recovery made on account of cost of books of Rs. 490/- can not be permitted with no details of how it had been given or how the petitioner was responsible for cost of books. I would find this deduction also as an appropriate if the amount determined.
(K. KANNAN) 17.02.2012 JUDGE reena
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the university correctly calculated the retiral dues payable to the petitioner teaching staff.
Whether unauthorized deductions could be made from the petitioner's pension and provident fund.
Prof. Chaman Lal Aggarwal
Panjab University
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
