High Court · 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 31.03.2005CORAMTHE HON’BLE MR.MARKANDEY KATJU, CHIEF JUSTICEandTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAW.A.No.4188 of 2004-------1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Public Works Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Principal, Central Polytechnic College, Chennai – 113.3. The Chief Engineer (Buildings), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.4. The Director of Technical Education, Chennai – 25. ..Appellants. Vs. V.Mariappan ..Respondents.Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orderdated 12.05.2004, passed in W.P.No.13635 of 2004 (WP No.13635/04presented under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue awrit of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to disburse thepetitioner's gratuity amount of Rs.3,50,000.00 to and in favour of thepetitioner as sanctioned in the order from the Office of theAccountant General dated 5.3.2004 by obtaining the 'No DemandCertificate' from the respondents 1 and 3).-------For Appellants:: Mr.S.Sivashanmugasundaram Addl. Government PleaderFor Respondent:: Mr.S.Sadasharam------- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J U D G M E N T ----- (The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TheHon’ble The Chief Justice) This writ appeal has been filed against the impugnedorder, dated 12.05.2004, passed by the learned single Judge.2. Respondent herein (writ petitioner) is a physicallyhandicapped person who suffered from Polio Myelitis of bothlower limbs and he cannot move without crutches. He wasworking as a Senior Lecturer in English at CentralPolytechnic, Taramani, Chennai from 07.01.1972 and retiredon 31.03.2004. While he was in regular service, he wasallotted a Government residential quarters of ‘A’ Type inTodhunter Nagar, Saidapet. On his retirement, he made anapplication for sanction of gratuity amount to the tune ofRs.3,50,000/- but the said gratuity amount was notdisbursed to him as respondents 1 to 3 therein have notissued No Demand Certificate required for the disbursementof the gratuity amount. A writ petition was filed by thewrit petitioner (respondent herein) and the learned singleJudge directed the 4th respondent therein to settle thegratuity amount due to the writ petitioner after obtainingNo Demand Certificate from respondents 1 to 3 thereinwithin a time-frame. By this appeal, the respondents in thewrit petition (the appellants herein) challenge theimpugned order of the learned single Judge.3. Learned Additional Government Pleader submittedthat an amount of Rs.4,56,317/- is due from the writpetitioner (respondent herein) as penal rent in respect ofthe Government residential quarters occupied by him. It isalleged by the learned Additional Government Pleader thatthe writ petitioner (respondent in this appeal) hadcontinued to occupy the rental premises even after crossingthe ceiling limit on basic pay of Rs.4,000/- on 01.01.1994as per the condition stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.995, PWD,dated 09.05.1990. It is further alleged that the writpetitioner neither paid the penal rent (3 times of normalrent) nor vacated the quarters. Hence, for a period that heover stayed, the rent was fixed and the writ petitioner hadto pay the penal rent to the tune of Rs.4,70,839/-. Since,this amount is larger than the gratuity claimed, thepetitioner cannot be paid the gratuity.4. In this connection, we may mention that while inservice the respondent/writ petitioner was entitled to theallotment of Government residential quarters and it was on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his application that a residential quarters of ‘A’ type atTodhunter Nagar, Saidapet, Chennai was allotted to him videG.O.Ms. No.1384 dated 13.08.1985 and he was in continuousoccupation of the said quarters since 30.08.1985. However,by G.O.Ms.No.995, PWD, dated 09.05.1990 the StateGovernment prescribed the revised maximum ceiling limit forthe occupation of the P.W.D. quarters at Todhunter Nagar,Saidapet as Rs.4,000/- p.m., when the revised scale of paywas introduced. It is alleged that the writ petitioner hadcrossed that basic pay limit. Consequently, the ChiefEngineer (Buildings) Public Works Department vide hisnotice dated 26.02.1997 made a demand of Rs.3,50,000/- fromthe petitioner, and also directed him to vacate the saidquarters. 5. The writ petitioner made several representations tothe concerned authorities seeking special permission toallow him to continue in the said residential quarters oncompassionate and humanitarian grounds since he was aphysically handicapped person. Since, his requests for hiscontinuance in the Government residential quarters and forcancellation of the levy of penal rent were rejected by theChief Engineer (Buildings), Public Works Department, byletter dated 18.06.1995, the petitioner filed anapplication (O.A.No.6344 of 1997) before the Tamil NaduState Administrative Tribunal, Chennai challenging thevalidity of G.O.Ms.No.995 dated 09.05.1990. The Tribunalrejected the application by order dated 18.09.2002, againstwhich he filed the writ petition, W.P.No.45651 of 2002. Onthat petition, this Court, by its order dated 14.01.2003,observed as follows:“Learned Government Advocate very fairly statesthat the petitioner would be provided with aquarters commensurate with his salary. Thepetitioner has no objection to move to anotherquarters if so provided.2. We therefore direct that on being provided witha commensurate quarters only, steps shall be takento vacate the quarters presently occupied by thepetitioner. With this, we dispose of the writpetition. No costs. This exercise should be done asearly as possible and as far as possible withinfour months from today”. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted thatthe order of this Court dated 14.01.2003 cannot beinterpreted to mean that the order of the Tribunal dated18.09.2002 has been set aside. We do not agree.W.P.No.45651 of 2002 was specifically directed against theorder of the Tribunal dated 18.09.2002. Hence, although ithas not been expressly mentioned by this Court in its order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 14.01.2003 that the order of the Tribunal has beenset aside, in our opinion, by necessary implication it hasbeen set aside and superseded by the order of this Courtdated 14.01.2003. This could be the only correctinterpretation, because any other interpretation would makethe order of this Court dated 14.01.2003 redundant. 6. A perusal of the order of this Court dated14.01.2003 in W.P.No.45651 of 2002 clearly shows that thewrit petitioner was permitted to continue to occupy thesaid Government residential quarters until he was providedwith alternative accommodation commensurate with hissalary. In our opinion, by implication this means that thewrit petitioner would have to pay only the rent which hewas paying for this official accommodation and would nothave to pay penal rent as fixed by G.O.Ms.No.995 dated09.05.1990. 7. In our opinion, this can be the only import of theorder dated 14.01.2003 passed by this Court in WritPetition No.45651 of 2002. We cannot accept the submissionof the learned Additional Government Pleader to thecontrary. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner wasnot provided with alternative accommodation commensuratewith his salary, and hence, in our opinion, he was notliable to pay penal rent. This is a clear case ofharassment of a retired, invalid teacher by theauthorities. 8. In view of the above, we confirm the impugned orderof the learned single Judge dated 12.05.2004 and dismissthe appeal. Connected W.A.M.P.Nos.7938 of 2004 and 828 of2005 are closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarJai/smTo1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu,Public Works Department, Fort St. George, Chenai 600 0092.The Principal Central Polytechnic College,Chennai 113 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Chief Engineer (Buildings) Public Works Department,Chepauk, Chennai -54.The Director of Technical Education, Chennai-25+1cc to the Govt. Pleader Sr 15416+1cc to Mr.S.Sadasharam Advocate Sr 15301JRG (CO)km/5.4.W.A.No.4188 of 2004