Smt. Tara Balgopal vs Rajdhani College and Another

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—Petitioner was an employee of the respondent no. 1-college. Through this writ petition petitioner claims monetary emoluments under various heads from the respondent no. 1. The heads under which claims are made are arrears towards higher grade pay, leave encashment allowance, amount due on account of wrongful deductions made from the salary, LTC and so on. I may note that effectively, petitioner is seeking a money decree from the respondent no. 1 under different heads. Although, ordinarily suits should be filed for such claims, however, considering that it is an old matter and there are really no vexed questions of facts, therefore, I am proceeding to dispose of this writ petition on merits. The first claim of the petitioner is that on being appointed to the respondent no. 1-college as on 16.7.1965, petitioner''s salary should have been fixed instead of Rs. 400, at the figure of Rs. 440/- w.e.f. 1.2.1966. etitioner claims an amount of Rs. 3,41,135.41.

A reference to the writ petition shows that no calculations whatsoever are given, and there are no pleadings before this Court as to how this figure of Rs. 3,41,135.41 is arrived at. Detailed calculations on this aspect were necessary because it is not disputed that petitioner was entitled to Rs. 440/- per month w.e.f. 1.2.1966, however, the respondent no. 1 states that whatever amount was due to the petitioner stands paid. Therefore, in the absence of any calculations money decree of such a huge amount cannot be fastened upon the respondent no. 1. This claim is therefore rejected.

The next claim raised by the petitioner is towards leave encashment. Petitioner claims leave encashment for 240 days. Respondent no. 1 has given leave encashment for 138 days. Respondent no. 1 states that the petitioner only had 138 days of unutilized leave and therefore petitioner has been granted benefit accordingly. Nothing has been averred in the rejoinder-affidavit as to how the petitioner does not have unutilized leave of more than 138 days. Therefore, I do not find any reason to give leave encashment pay of 240 days instead of 138 days for which the petitioner has been paid.

It may be noted that petitioner was re-employed by the respondent no. 1 in accordance with the extant rules, and for the period of re-employment a total of 58 days leave encashment was due to the petitioner, and for which days also the petitioner has been made the necessary payment. This claim of the petitioner is also therefore rejected.

The next claim of the petitioner is towards an amount of Rs. 4376.11 allegedly on the ground that petitioner had deposited the amount under Compulsory Deposit Scheme in the years 1975-1977, but this amount has not been refunded to the petitioner. It may be noted that at no point of time before filing of this writ petition the petitioner ever made a grievance that this amount was due and has not been paid. Also, this writ petition is filed in the year 1998 and a claim with respect to amounts deposited in 1975 to 1977 i.e. around 22 years earlier, and hence would become difficult to resolve inasmuch as, respondent no. 1 states that the relevant record does not exist. I also doubt that there is any merit in the claim of the petitioner because if really this amount of Rs. 4376.11 was due, petitioner immediately after the Compulsory Deposit Scheme amount became due but the same having not been paid to the petitioner, would have addressed her grievance to the respondent no. 1, and which admittedly has not been done. This claim is also therefore rejected.

The next claim of the petitioner is that on her re-employment the respondent no. 1 wrongly deducted an amount of Rs. 1198 per month. Petitioner claims this amount for the period of re-employment. Respondent no. 1 in the counter-affidavit has stated the fact that this amount per month was deducted because salary of the petitioner was fixed for the period of re-employment in terms of the University''s letter dated 20.1.1992, and which deduction was directed to be made by the University because petitioner on her retirement, before her being re-employed, had received amount towards the contribution to provident fund. Therefore, in such circumstances, the pay which was to be fixed of the petitioner for re-employment, was to be deducted by Rs. 1198/- on account of pension equivalent of CPF. Therefore, in my opinion, once a specific pay has been fixed by reducing an amount of Rs. 1198/- pursuant to direction of the University to which the respondent no. 1-college is affiliated, petitioner cannot claim to have valid grievance. This claim is therefore rejected.

The last claim which is prayed before me is for payment towards LTC for a sum of Rs. 6052/-. This claim is made by relying on the Rule that if petitioner could not visit her home town because of circumstances beyond control, due to which the destination cannot be reached, LTC will have to be paid. A reference to the ticket of travel of the petitioner for Delhi to Madras shows that the same is for 19.5.1996. Petitioner has relied upon a newspaper clipping of heavy rains, however which is of much later date viz. 15.6.1996. Petitioner therefore, in my opinion, has not substantiated her claim on the ground that on 19.5.1996, she could not travel to her home town on account of reasons beyond control. I may also note that ticket in the present case was up to Madras (now Chennai) although, the home town of the petitioner was Madurai. In any case, petitioner having failed to prove the circumstances beyond control, entitling her to claim LTC, therefore this claim cannot be allowed. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.