SH. C.L.GUPTA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

1. On 4.2.2013, the following order was passed:- The issue in the present case is as to whether the petitioner stood compulsorily retired with effect from 31.12.1994 pursuant to his application for Voluntarily Retirement dated 12.12.1994. The only issue which arises is that can the petitioner continue to retain the accommodation given by the employer and yet claim that VRS could only be accepted unless first all the dues in terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme were cleared by granting the same to the petitioner. In the present case, the employer/respondent No.2 had taken a company lease of House No.202, Jor Bagh, New Delhi and which was in occupation of the petitioner. The employer asked the petitioner to vacate the quarter inasmuch as the same had been allotted to another employee Shri S.C. Thedkar. On the one hand petitioner was not paid his VRS dues, however, on the other hand, the petitioner continued to 2013:DHC:2176 occupy the leased accommodation of the employer. Therefore, what the issue really boils down to is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim that his voluntary retirement did not fructify because the dues were not paid to him or that can the employer claim that VRS is final but dues could only be paid to the petitioner on his vacating the company leased accommodation. There were further developments in that action was taken against the petitioner under Section 630 of the Companies Act, and which stood dismissed at the appellate stage on the petitioner vacating the company leased accommodation. At the appellate stage in the case under Section 630 of the Companies Act, the petitioner is said to have paid approximately `2.00 lakhs to the employer in terms of the directions issued by the Court dealing with the case. As of today, however, there is no clarity as to why, if the petitioner had balance dues, the same were not released to him. This, I am observing, because counsel for the petitioner says that till date no part of the VRS benefits have been released to the petitioner. Counsel for Respondent No.2 is not aware of the facts as to whether any amount has been paid to the petitioner, what is the amount which has to be adjusted against the VRS claim of the petitioner, and finally what was the reason why till date VRS dues minus the adjustments to be made by the respondent No.2 have not been released to the petitioner. Counsel for respondent No.2 prays for and is granted a period of three weeks to file necessary affidavit. Reply, thereto, if any, be filed by the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. List for further proceedings on 11.3.2013.

2. Respondent no.2 has filed additional affidavit. The additional affidavit shows that the petitioner was entitled to a total sum of ` 4,96,532/- on his voluntary retirement application being accepted on 26.12.1994. The dues which were payable to the petitioner were payable on 31.12.1994.

3. Dues of the petitioner were not paid because the petitioner refused to vacate the premises allotted by the employer/respondent no.2 and therefore, proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 were initiated against the petitioner. These proceedings were ultimately compromised in the High Court vide order dated 8.2.2012 in Criminal M.C No. 1804/2011 and Criminal M.A.NO. 6482/2011 as the petitioner’s deposit of Rs. 2 lacs was taken as compromised amount by the respondent no.2 towards its claim for damages/compensation.

4. A reference to the additional affidavit shows that dues of the petitioner were not released because the petitioner had amended the writ petition to claim reinstatement. Therefore, on one hand, petitioner had claimed that he had voluntarily retired w.e.f 26.12.1994, but on the other hand, petitioner was claiming reinstatement because the dues of voluntary retirement were not paid.

5. In view of the above, in my opinion, this writ petition can be disposed of with the direction that petitioner be now paid ` 4,96,532/- alongwith interest at 9% per annum simple from 8.2.2012. The date being 8.2.2012 is taken as the respondent no.2 was entitled to withhold the dues payable to the petitioner against its claims and it is only on this date that the petitioner’s entitlement to the retiral dues of a specific amount was crystallized after the respondent no.2 took the amount of Rs. 2 lacs with interest in satisfaction of its claims.

6. In my opinion, once the petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement was accepted, and this is admitted by him even in the writ petition, merely because dues are not paid, it cannot mean that the petitioner does not stand voluntarily retired from the respondent no.2. Non-payment of dues is a matter wholly independent of the aspect of acceptance of voluntary retirement which at best entitled petitioner to file recovery proceedings but he cannot claim that voluntary retirement did not come into effect. Also, in the facts of the present case the respondent no.2 was justified in withholding the dues of ` 4,96,532/- on account of petitioner illegally refusing to vacate the premises allotted to him during the course of his employment and till the criminal case against the petitioner was withdrawn as the petitioner had deposited in court an amount of ` 2 lacs towards the claim of the respondent no.2 towards charges for illegal use and occupation of property bearing no. 202, Jor Bagh, New Delhi.

7. The respondent no.2 will within a period of three weeks from today give to the petitioner calculations as to how the specific amount of Rs.4,96,532/- is the retiral dues and which was payable on the petitioner getting voluntary retirement. Petitioner will be entitled to respond to the calculations, and the respondent no.2 will thereafter determine the amount payable and pay the same to the petitioner in three weeks thereafter. Respondent no.2 will pay the amount due to the petitioner within three months from today. Any dispute as to what is the amount payable on the voluntary retirement of the petitioner, and the balance payable after the petitioner receives amounts from the respondent no.2, will be aspects which will be considered in contempt proceedings, if any, on account of non compliance of this judgment of payment of dues to the petitioner. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

APRIL 30, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib At this stage, after the judgment was dictated counsel for the petitioner Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate and counsel for the respondents Mr. Karan Kanwal, Advocate appeared and they have been apprised of the above judgment.

APRIL 30, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib