Employer May Recover Rent Arrears From Retiral Dues Of Employee But Cannot Retain & Withhold Whole Retiral Dues: Rajasthan HC

Expressing anguish on the state of affairs of the officials of the various departments of the State who are not bothering to pay the post retiral dues to the employees, the Rajasthan High Court issued a general mandamus to all the Departments of the State to strictly comply with all the mandatory provisions contained under Chapter VI of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 within the stipulated time and not to cause unnecessary delays and should make payment of pension and all retiral dues promptly.

The High Court made it clear that the mandamus must be strictly complied with, failing which the erring officer of the parent department as well as the pension department would be held responsible for violation of this order and they would be held accountable to payment of cost from their own pocket for causing unnecessary delay in payment of rightful post retiral claim of the retiring persons.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that “the instant petition stands disposed of directing the respondent to release all retiral dues to the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It goes without saying that respondents may deduct the due rent amount from the retiral dues at the time of making the final payment after following the due process of law”.

Advocate Ashwani Chobisa appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate B.K Sharma appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner got voluntary retirement from the post of Revenue Inspector. However, despite passing of a considerable time, retiral dues have not been released to the petitioner. An objection was taken by the Audit Inspection Team in the year 2003 that irregular pay scale was given to the petitioner, which was denied by the Respondents. Further, it was alleged that the petitioner over stayed in the residential premises and has not paid due rent for which a notice was given to him in the year 2007. This failure to deposit the due rent and arrears was contended as one of the reasons that the retiral dues was not paid to the petitioner.

After considering the submission, the Bench found that the petitioner was given compassionate appointment and after completing the qualifying services, he applied for voluntary retirement which was allowed and the petitioner was granted voluntary retirement.

The Bench further found that the respondents had directed the petitioner to deposit the due rent, which was not complied with by the petitioner and the respondents have withheld the entire retiral dues of the petitioner.

However, while considering the question as to whether the respondents can deny the entire retiral dues to the petitioner only on the pretext that some due rent was not paid by the petitioner despite receiving notice, the High Court observed that the respondents could have recovered the due rent amount from the retiral dues of the petitioner.

However, in any case, the respondents were not having any authority to retain and withhold the whole retiral dues, added the Bench while deprecating such action of the respondents as quite unjustified.

Cause Title: Jitendra Kumar Jain S v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Click here to read/download the Order