M.C.D. vs. S.P. Jain

R.N. Mittal, President:

1. This appeal has been filed by the MCD against the order of District Forum-I (D.F.) dated 20.12.93.

2. Briefly the facts are that Sh. S.P. Jain, complainant was an employee of the MCD. He retired from service on 31.3.93. After his retirement, it is alleged, he has not been paid the amount of gratuity. Consequently, he filed a complaint before the D.F.

3. The complaint was resisted by the MCD on the ground that the gratuity can be retained for payment of rent of the house, retained by the employee after retirement from-service. It is further alleged that the complainant has not vacated the premises given to him by the MCD and he is still holding the same without payment of rent. Consequently, he is not entitled to get the gratuity, unless he paid the rent and vacated the premises.

4. The D.F. came to the conclusion that under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 72 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 an amount of Rs. 1,000/- can be retained by the department out of the gratuity. Consequently it directed the MCD to make payment of the amount of gratuity after retaining Rs. 1,000/-. The MCD has come up in appeal against that order to the Commission.

5. Mrs. Neera Bhargava, the Counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant is not a consumer. We do not agree with the submission. The matter is covered by a decision of this Commission in M.K. Sangal v. A.C. Allahabad, I (1992) CPJ 441. Consequently the contention is rejected.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has next argued that the present case is covered by Sub-rule (3) and not by Sub-rule (5) of Rule 72 of the Pension Rules. We have duly considered the matter. In order to appreciate the argument it is necessary to read rule 72, which is as follows:

“72. (1) The Directorate of Estates on receipt of intimation from the Head of Office under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57 regarding the issue of No Demand Certificate shall scrutinise its records and inform the Head of Office eight months before the date of retirement of the allottee, if any licence fee was recoverable from him in respect of the period prior to eight months of his retirement. If no intimation in regard to recovery of outstanding licence fee is received by the Head of Office by the stipulated date, it shall be presumed that no licence fee was recoverable from the allottee in respect of the period preceding eight months of his retirement.

(2) The Head of Office shall ensure that licence fee for the next eight months, that is uptothe date of retirement of the allottee, is recovered every month from the pay and allowances of the allottee.

(3) Where the Directorate of Estates intimates the amount of licence fee recoverable in respect of the period mentioned in Sub-rule (1), the Head of Office shall ensure that outstanding licence fee is recovered in instalments from the current pay and allowances of the allottee and where the entire amount is not recovered from the pay and allowances, the balance shall be recovered out of the gratuity before its payment is authorised.

(4) The Directorate of Estates shall also inform the Head of Office the amount of licence fee for the retention of Government accommodation for the permissible period of (four months) beyond the date of retirement of the allottee. The Head of Office shall adjust the amount of that licence fee from the amount of the gratuity together with the unrecovered licence fee, if any, mentioned in Sub-rule (3).

(5) If in any particular case, it is not possible for the Directorate of Estates to determine the outstanding licence fee, that Directorate shall inform the Head of Office that 10 % of the gratuity or one thousand rupees, whichever is less, may be withheld pending receipt of further information.

(6) The recovery of licence fee for the occupation of the Government accommodation beyond the permissible period of (four months) after the date of retirement of allottee shall be the responsibility of the Directorate of Estates. Any amount becoming due on account of licence fee for retention of Government beyond four months after retirement and remaining amount may be ordered to be recovered by the Directorate of Estates through the concerned Accounts Office from the dearness relief without the consent of the pensioner. In such cases no dearness relief shall be disbursed until full recovery of such dues have been made.”

From the reading of Sub-rule (1) to (3) it is evident that sub-rule (3) applies only to those cases where the rent in respect of the period prior to eight months of the date of retirement is due from a Municipal employee. Sub-rule (4) deals with the rent due from the employee for the period of 4 months beyond the date of retirement. Sub-rule (5) applies in case it is not possible for the Directorate of Estates to determine the rent. In the present case it is not pleaded that the Directorate is unable to determine rent. Sub-rule (6) says that if any rent is due from a employee beyond a period of 4 months after the date of retirement its recovery is the responsibility of the Directorate of Estates and it shall be recoverable from dearness relief of the pensioner.

Mrs. Bhargava has informed us that the respondent has already paid the rent for the period upto the period of 4 months beyond the date of the retirement and the rent, which is due from him is after the period of four months beyond the date of retirement. Thus the present case is governed by Sub-rule (6) and not by Subrules (1) to (5). The MCD, therefore, can recover the rent under Sub-rule (6) from the dearness allowance of the respondent.

7. Faced with this situation Mrs. Bhargava has referred to Rule 9 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Gratuity Regulations, 1959 and submitted that the amount due from the complainant/respondent can be recovered under it. We have duly considered the matter but regret our inability to accept the same. The regulation reads as follows:—

“9. The competent authority shall have power to recover any money claims which the Corporation may have against a subscriber by deduction from the gratuity.”

8. From a reading of the regulation it is clear that the amount, which is due from a subscriber, can be deducted from his gratuity. The word ‘subscriber has been defined in the regulation and it means a Municipal employee who subscribes to the Provident Fund maintained by the Corporation for its employees paid out of the General Account of the Municipal Fund. Therefore, regulation 9 applies in the case of those payments which became due to the Municipal Corporation from an employee when he was a subscriber. It, in our view, will not apply to the respondent. Therefore, the MCD cannot make any deduction from the gratuity of the amount which became due from him after his retirement.

9. After taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case we are of the view that MCD cannot deduct the amount of rent in dispute from the gratuity of the complainant/respondent.

10. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.