Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.C.V.S.RAO versus INDIAN DRUGS

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.C.V.S.Rao v. Indian Drugs - WP.34485 OF 2005 [2007] RD-TN 2871 (3 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED : 03.09.2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM

W.P.NO.34485 OF 2005

AND

W.P.M.P.NO.37389 OF 2005 AND W.V.M.P.NO.4 OF 2007

K.C.V.S.Rao .. Petitioner Vs.

1.Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,

rep. by its Director

(Marketing & Finance),

IDPL Corporate Office,

Dundahera,

Delhi-Gurgaon Road,

Gurgaon-122 016.

2.The General Manager-Incharge,

IDPL (TN) Ltd.,

Nandambakkam,

Chennai-600 089.

3.The Senior Personnel Executive,

I.D.P.L. (TN) Ltd.,

Nandambakkam,

Chennai-600 089. .. Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for the relief as stated therein.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad

for M/s.Row & Reddy For Respondents: Mr.N.Ishtiaq Ahmed

- - - -

ORDER



The petitioner has brought forth this writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to settle the terminal benefits, namely Ex-gratia, leave encashment, Housing loan interest subsidy and incentive bonus to the petitioner having accepted his voluntary retirement forthwith together with 18 interest per annum and to charge only normal rate of rent and electricity charges for the quarters occupied by him till such time the terminal benefits are paid with interest.

2.The court heard the learned counsel on either side.

3.The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was the Deputy General Manager of the first respondent and he was in additional charge of the post of the General Manager; that he came out on voluntary retirement and he was relieved from duty on 8.9.2004; that despite the same, the terminal benefits were not cleared; that he filed W.P.No.37462 of 2004 before this court and there was an order on 17.12.2004, directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of 12 weeks; that despite the same, the second respondent has paid only Rs.20,949/- being the contribution made by him towards provident fund and nothing more and under these circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to file this writ petition before this court for a direction to the respondents to settle the terminal benefits. Added further the learned counsel that in the instant case, the petitioner has been occupying the quarters of the first respondent even after voluntary retirement; that he has been making payment of Rs.161/- per month which was the rental paid by him; that there was notice served on him that he should make the penal rent for the unlawful occupation of the property even after voluntary retirement and under these circumstances, it has got to be quashed.

4.The learned counsel for the respondents, inter-alia, would submit that while the petitioner was acting as the Deputy General Manager, he entered into a lease agreement with his son and two others, leasing out the landed properties belonged to the respondents institution; that it came to the knowledge of the department; that it was subsequently approved and cancelled; that on investigation by the C.B.I., criminal proceedings have been initiated; that when representation was made by him and pending consideration, he approached this court by way of the writ petition, as referred to above, and this court has also passed an order to consider the same and pass orders within a period of 12 weeks; that the payment of Rs.20,949/- has been cleared and the rest of the amount was not yet settled, in view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings and under these circumstances, no question of settlement, at this juncture, would arise. Apart from that, so far as the occupation of quarters by the petitioner even after voluntary retirement is concerned, even as per the guidelines and rules, the petitioner is bound to pay the penal rent, which has been asked for and under these circumstances, the writ petition does not carry any merit and it has got to be dismissed.

5.The court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. It is not in controversy that the petitioner herein while he was working as the Deputy General Manager of the respondents institution, was acting as the General Manager. He placed requisition for voluntary retirement in the year 2002. Originally, it was kept pending and he was not allowed to retire, since no due certificate must be given by the Vigilance Department of the institution. In the instant case, he was allowed to retire and he was also relieved from service on 8.9.2004. At that juncture, no due certificate was received from the Vigilance Department. Hence, he was allowed to retire subject to the receipt of the same. Now, it is pertinent to point out that while disposing the earlier writ petition, this court has directed the respondents Department to dispose of the representation within a period of 12 weeks. While disposing of the representation, there was a reply given by the respondents wherein it has been clearly stated that the proceedings are pending against him. Further, the reply given by the respondents reads as follows: "In view of the above factual position, the VRS and other dues shall be paid to you after getting clearance from Vigilance Department of IDPL Corporate Office, Gurgaon and also No Due Certificates from various Department after deducting any monetary loss incurred by the Company due to your acts of irregularities as stated above. However as a gesture of goodwill, we are releasing you CPF accumulation towards full and final settlement. Accordingly please find enclosed herewith a cheque bearing No.896879 dt.01.03.2005 for Rs.20,949.00 (Rupees Twenty thousand nine hundred and forty nine only)."

6.What are all noted by the court in the said communication is that the settlement could be made after deducting any monetary loss incurred by the company due to his acts of irregularities as stated therein. It was not a case where it was estimated, but it was mentioned as monetary loss. Further, it is also mentioned in the said communication that two suits have been filed, which were pending before the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalput. Thus, it would be quite clear that the agreement alleged to have been entered into by the petitioner herein in his capacity as the General Manager to his son, though approved earlier, it was stand cancelled. Under these circumstances, suits have been filed by the other two persons and not by the son of the petitioner. Thus, it would be quite clear that once the agreement alleged to have been entered by the petitioner, though approved, subsequently, it was cancelled and that was not the subject matter of any pending proceedings before the court. However, it is brought to the notice of the court that the criminal proceedings have been initiated and they are pending. At the same time, what was mentioned was that monetary loss was incurred by the Company due to the act of irregularities.

7.Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amount in the hands of the company by way of not settlement was to the tune of more than Rs.9 lakhs. This court is unable to see any justification for the company to retain such an huge amount. Under these circumstances, it is a fit and proper case where a direction could be given to the respondents company to make payment of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) within a period of eight weeks herefrom. The remainder could be retained and it could be settled after the disposal of the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, it is ordered.

8.Insofar as the occupation of quarters by the petitioner is concerned, he is making payment of Rs.161/- per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the court that as per the guidelines, the person, who is under voluntary retirement, could be continued to be in occupation till they make payment and as per the guidelines, the company is entitled to retain Rs.4 lakhs out of the total amount, which has got to be settled as pensionary benefits. In the instant case, the respondents company has to pay Rs.9 lakhs. Now, the court has ordered for payment of Rs.5 lakhs and thus, the remainder is Rs.4 lakhs. Apart from that, in the instant case, the entire amount have not been settled till this time. In view of the alleged financial loss pursuant to the irregularities, the amount has been retained. Under these circumstances, the court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has got to be directed to make the revised payment of Rs.3375/- per month from the date of the disposal of the writ petition till the matter comes to settlement between the parties. Accordingly, it is ordered.

9.The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that so far as the payment of gratuity is concerned, the matter is pending on the file of the Central Commissioner of Labour and the respondents are about to deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards gratuity on 9.9.2007 and the respondents have no objection for the petitioner taking the said amount. The court is of the considered opinion that if the amount of Rs.2 lakhs is deposited as put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner can take the amount of Rs.2 lakhs from the Commissionerate and the rest of the amount of Rs.3 lakhs could be paid by the respondents herein, within a period of eight weeks herefrom as stated above. If it was not done, the order of payment of Rs.5 lakhs, as ordered above, will hold good. Accordingly, it is ordered. Further, there is no impediment for issuing a direction to the respondents to make the deposit of balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs towards the pensionary benefits in a nationalised bank and the interest would also accrue thereon on such deposit till the disposal of the proceedings between the parties. Accordingly, it is also ordered. This writ M.CHOCKALINGAM, J. vvk petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 03.09.2007 Index : Yes

Internet : Yes

vvk

To

1.The Director

(Marketing & Finance),

Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,

IDPL Corporate Office,

Dundahera,

Delhi-Gurgaon Road,

Gurgaon-122 016.

2.The General Manager-Incharge,

IDPL (TN) Ltd.,

Nandambakkam,

Chennai-600 089.

3.The Senior Personnel Executive,

I.D.P.L. (TN) Ltd.,

Nandambakkam,

Chennai-600 089.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.