Vijay Prakash Piplani vs B.L. Sharma

Alok Sharma, J.—Non-compliance of the order dated 14.03.2011, passed by this Court has been alleged in this contempt petition. Thereunder this Court had held that withholding of pension, gratuity and leave encashment due to the petitioner on his retirement without any legal foundation could not be sustained and reliance upon Ordinance 357-C of the University of Rajasthan Ordinance was untenable. In the operative portion of the order dated 14.03.2011, while consequentially setting aside the order dated 20.01.2009 passed by respondent-University, the Court observed that "if punishment of withholding of retiral benefits or other punishment cannot be imposed under the rules applicable to the University employees, respondents are expected not to commit same illegality."

Counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner present in person have submitted that the pension of the petitioner has been released. They however submit that leave encashment to which the petitioner is entitled as also due gratuity is not being paid to him. No inquiry has been conducted by the University to determine any loss caused to the University for action/s attributable to the petitioner. It is submitted that the nonpayment of amount due under the leave encashment and gratuity therefore constitutes contempt of the order dated 14.03.2011, passed by this Court.

Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sunita Pareek, appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to Chapter XLV of University of Rajasthan handbook, Part-II, Volume-III at page 131 dealing with provisions for payment of gratuity. He submits that as a first condition for payment of gratuity, it has been provided that it shall be payable at the discretion of the Vice Chancellor to an employee on his rendering satisfactory service to the University till the date he attains the age of superannuation or the date of retirement after extension, or his death while in service, or on termination of service otherwise then on dismissal. The proviso to the condition-1 aforesaid further states that the amount payable to an employee "under these rules" shall be reduced by an amount equal to the value of any loss or damage to University property including money caused on account of negligence or criminal offence, or on account of contributory negligence of the University''s employee resulting in any loss. It has been submitted that the petitioner was engaged as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with the University of Rajasthan and in the estimation of the Vice Chancellor for the purpose of exercising his discretion with regard to payment of gratuity it was found that the petitioner''s inaction and dereliction of duty occasioned levy of penalty by RSEB on the University for overdrawing on electricity i.e. using electricity more than the sanctioned load. Counsel submits that the condition in the order dated 14.03.2011 passed by this Court that the retrial amount due to the petitioner shall not be withheld without any legal basis, thus stands satisfied with regard to the non-payment of gratuity.

Mr. Hemant Tailor, counsel for the petitioner, submits that no inquiry has been held against the petitioner for determination of the amount of loss occasioned to the University by the alleged dereliction of duty by the petitioner. He further submits that in this view of the matter even with reference to condition No. 1 for payment of gratuity, gratuity could not have been withheld. He further submits that the petitioner is not at all responsible for the levy of penalty by RSEB on the University for overdrawing of electricity in excess of the sanctioned load. Counsel further submits that in any event of the matter, there is no provision under the University of Rajasthan Ordinances for withholding of encashment of leave to which an employee is entitled.

Heard. Considered.

Jurisdiction of a Court hearing a contempt petition is limited and well defined. This Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of an order passed by an authority following liberty granted for the purpose by this Court in the underlying petition. In my considered opinion, this Court''s order dated 14.03.2011 allowed withholding of a retrial benefit to the petitioner if a rule obtained therefor--not otherwise.

Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate is correct in pointing out that the legal foundation for withholding of gratuity exists in condition No. 1 for payment of gratuity under Chapter XLV of Rajasthan of University hand-book, Part-II, Volume-III at page 131, referred above. Whether discretion has been rightly or wrongly exercised by the Vice Chancellor cannot appropriately be addressed by this Court in this contempt petition. To my mind it would be therefore in the fitness of things to allow the petitioner to agitate the withholding of gratuity with reference to condition No. 1 for payment of gratuity under Chapter XLV of Rajasthan of University hand-book, Part-II, Volume-III at page 131 by way of a fresh writ petition. Nothing expressed by this Court in this order would prejudice the case of either the petitioner or the RSEB at the time of hearing of the fresh writ petition, if so filed by the petitioner against the illegal and arbitrarily withholding of gratuity on a wrong application of condition No. 1 for payment of gratuity under Chapter XLV of Rajasthan of University hand-book, Part-II, Volume-III at page 131--as has been submitted in this contempt petition.

However, as far as encashment of leave is concerned. Mr. R.K. Agarwal has not been able to show any legal basis for withholding thereof. In this view of the matter, the judgment of this Court rendered on 14.03.2011 would necessitate payment of amount towards leave encashment--under pain of contempt otherwise forthwith. In my considered view, such encashment should therefore be allowed to the petitioner within period of two weeks from today and will carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date it become due till the date of payment.

The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. Notices discharged.