Dr. R.L. Tamboli Vs. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University and ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1126673
CourtRajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided OnFeb-07-2014
AppellantDr. R.L. Tamboli
RespondentMohan Lal Sukhadia University and ors
Excerpt:
s.b. civil writ petition no.1577/2013 dr. r.l. tamboli vs. mohan lal sukhadia university & ors. order dt:07. 02/2014 1/7 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur order s.b. civil writ petition no.1577/2013 dr. r.l. tamboli vs. mohan lal sukhadia university & ors. date of order :::07. h february 2014 present hon'ble dr. justice vineet kothari appearance: mr. manoj bhandari, for the petitioner. mr. g.r. punia, sr. advocate with mr. rajesh punia, for the respondent- m.l.s. university. -- by the court:1. the petitioner retired as a professor from the respondent- mohan lal sukhadia university, udaipur, on 30.06.2010. the petitioner while he was in service was allotted quarter no.c-1, durga nursery road, udaipur and he handed over back the vacant possession of the said residential accommodation allotted to him on 14.08.2013.2. by the impugned order (annex.8) dated 13.06.2012 the respondent- university, demanded penal rent of rs.2,17,683/- for the period 01.01.2011 to 31.05.2012 (17 months) at ten times of the s.b. civil writ petition no.1577/2013 dr. r.l. tamboli vs. mohan lal sukhadia university & ors. order dt:07. 02/2014 2/7 normal rent of rs.1273/- per month, and this amount has now increased to rs.4,40,636/- for the period 01.01.2011 to 14.08.2013 (31½ months), copy of such communication dated 24.08.2013 has been produced by the learned counsel for the respondent- university, which is taken on record.3. mr. manoj bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prior to the retirement, the writ petitions were filed by various professors and teachers of the universities claiming increase of age of superannuation to 65 years as per ugc norms, and that litigation came up to the hon'ble apex court and by an ad-interim order passed in similar bunch of matters on 09.05.2011, passed in slp nos. 9198-9221/2011, which reads as under: - “list in the second week of july, 2011. in the meanwhile, the petitioners are permitted to continue in the premises earlier allotted to them on the same terms and conditions. the parties are permitted to complete their pleadings, in the meanwhile.”. 4. although the present petitioner was also in the fray of litigation as intervener before the hon'ble supreme court, however, the same interim order was admittedly not passed in that case, but it is not disputed that aforesaid order was passed in similar cases. ultimately, the slp(s) came to be dismissed by the hon'ble supreme court on 19.07.2013 and thus the issue of superannuation age, which was 60 years came to an end and that litigation terminated against the professors. s.b. civil writ petition no.1577/2013 dr. r.l. tamboli vs. mohan lal sukhadia university & ors. order dt:07. 02/2014 3/7 5. the issue in the present case before this court is (i) the petitioner was entitled to the same protection as was given to the other similarly situated persons under the interim order of the hon'ble supreme court dated 09.05.2011, quoted above, even though no specific order was passed in his case; and (ii) whether the penal rent charged by the respondent- university, which amount now raised to rs.4,40,636/- deserves to be waived, wholly or partly or not.6. mr. g.r. punia, learned senior advocate assisted by mr. rajesh punia, appearing for the respondent- m.l.s. university, udaipur, submitted that as per the relevant rule 8 (iii) (a) of the rules for the allotment of residential accommodation for employees of mohanlal sukhadia university as approved by the board of management's resolution no.10 in its meeting held on 25.05.1999, the said penal rent cannot be waived or reduced by the respondent– university. the said rule 8 (iii) (a) is quoted below for ready reference: -“8. period for which allotment subsists and the concessional period for further retention. (iii). on retirement, resignation, dismissal or removal from service: (a). if an employee to whom a residence is alloted retires or resigns or is dismissed or removed from the service or is required to surrender the residence under those rules, he/she will be entitled to retain the residence allotted to him/her on normal rent for two months from the date of handing over charge. however, this period can be extended up to 6 s.b. civil writ petition no.1577/2013 dr. r.l. tamboli vs. mohan lal sukhadia university & ors. order dt:07. 02/2014 4/7 months in appropriate cases by the vice-chancellor. if any employee fails to vacate the residential accommodation immediately on expiry of the period so allowed, he/she shall be deemed to be a trespasser and be liable to be evicted as such and a penal rent which shall be ten time the rent being paid shall be charged from him/her. this shall also apply to officers/employees on deputation to the university.”. 7. on the other hand, mr. manoj bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner along-with other similarly situated professors, was before the court of law in this court as well as before the hon'ble supreme court, bonafidely contending that as per ugc norms, the retirement age should be increased to 65 years, and in that connection an interim order was passed by the hon'ble supreme court on 09.05.2011 permitting such persons/professors to continue in the premises earlier allotted to them 'on the same terms and conditions'. he, therefore, urged that even though no specific order was passed in the case, in which the petitioner was also allowed to intervene in the matter before the hon'ble supreme court, but the fact remains that the similar benefit deserved to be extended to the present petitioner also and at least for the period i.e. from 09.05.2011 when the interim order was made up to 09.07.2013, when the aforesaid bunch of slp(s) came to be dismissed by the hon'ble supreme court, as stated in reply filed by the respondent- university in the present case, no penal rent should have been charged from the petitioner and the petitioner is ready to s.b. civil writ petition no.1577/2013 dr. r.l. tamboli vs. mohan lal sukhadia university & ors. order dt:07. 02/2014 5/7 pay the penal rent for the balance period, though he has paid the normal rent for the whole period and the respondent university should not penalize their own professor for such bonafide litigation and in view of long period of his service. he also submitted that on this ground, the other retiral benefits of the petitioner have not been released by the respondent- university.8. having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that it is true that the relevant regulations approved by the board of management by the respondent- university, as quoted above, does not permit any such waiver of the penal rent which is as high as 10 times of normal rent, nor validity of rule 8 (iii) (a) has been challenged in the present writ petition, however, the fact remains that not only the petitioner but most of such other professor/s in various states, were agitating the issue relating to increase of superannuation age before the hon'ble supreme court and the aforesaid interim order dated 19.05.2011 was passed in one of the bunch of such petitions only in respect of their university accommodation alloted to them to be continued on the same terms and conditions in view of pendency of that litigation.9. it is obvious that such interim was intended to protect the interest of all the similarly placed persons, who were already in the litigation fray before the hon'ble supreme court at that point of time. therefore, there is no reason to hold that the petitioner was not entitled to retain the said accommodation on the same terms and conditions for that period. in the present writ petition, a coordinate s.b. civil writ petition no.1577/2013 dr. r.l. tamboli vs. mohan lal sukhadia university & ors. order dt:07. 02/2014 6/7 bench of this court while issuing notices to the respondents vide the order dated 21.02.2013 also passed an interim order, staying the effect and operation of the impugned notice dated 31.01.2013 (annex.13) and restrained the respondents from taking any coercive measures against the petitioner and aforesaid interim order has remained in currency during the pendency of the present writ petition till today. since the question is only relating to penal rent and not the normal rent, which the petitioner is said to have already paid, and if not paid, he undertakes to pay the normal rent for the entire period along-with the penal rent for the remaining period other than the period during which aforesaid stay order of hon'ble supreme court continued, therefore, the case deserves to be sympathetically and objectively considered in these circumstances, specially where the petitioner having served the respondent- university as a professor for long number of years, and now already having retired and having handed over the vacant possession of the accommodation allotted to him soon after dismissal of the slp/s by the hon'ble apex court on 19.07.2013 i.e. in 14.08.2013, within one month thereof.10. therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent- university to reduce the penal rent proportionately and waive the same for the period from 19.05.2011 to 19.07.2013 i.e. the date of interim order of the hon'ble supreme court and the date of dismissal of the slp/s of other similarly situated professors; and this extent, the penal rent/interest may not be charged from the petitioner. however, for the remaining period for s.b. civil writ petition no.1577/2013 dr. r.l. tamboli vs. mohan lal sukhadia university & ors. order dt:07. 02/2014 7/7 which said penal rent has been levied and charged, the amount of penal rent would be payable by the petitioner/professor and to which learned counsel for the petitioner agreed and submitted that the petitioner undertakes to pay the said remaining amount. since, the petitioner has already retired from the services on 30.06.2010 and his retiral dues are still withheld, it is directed that after recomputing the said amount of penal rent, as directed above, and after adjusting the said remaining amount, from the retiral dues of the petitioner, the balance amount of retiral dues may be released in his favour immediately.11. with these observations and directions, the writ petition of the petitioner is disposed of. no costs. a copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. (dr. vineet kothari), j.dj/- 52
Judgment:

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1577/2013 Dr. R.L. Tamboli Vs. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University & Ors. Order dt:

07. 02/2014 1/7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1577/2013 Dr. R.L. Tamboli Vs. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University & Ors. DATE OF ORDER

:::

07. h February 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Appearance: Mr. Manoj Bhandari, for the petitioner. Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Punia, for the respondent- M.L.S. University. -- BY THE COURT:

1. The petitioner retired as a Professor from the respondent- Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, on 30.06.2010. The petitioner while he was in service was allotted Quarter No.C-1, Durga Nursery Road, Udaipur and he handed over back the vacant possession of the said residential accommodation allotted to him on 14.08.2013.

2. By the impugned order (Annex.8) dated 13.06.2012 the respondent- University, demanded penal rent of Rs.2,17,683/- for the period 01.01.2011 to 31.05.2012 (17 months) at ten times of the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1577/2013 Dr. R.L. Tamboli Vs. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University & Ors. Order dt:

07. 02/2014 2/7 normal rent of Rs.1273/- per month, and this amount has now increased to Rs.4,40,636/- for the period 01.01.2011 to 14.08.2013 (31½ months), copy of such communication dated 24.08.2013 has been produced by the learned counsel for the respondent- University, which is taken on record.

3. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prior to the retirement, the writ petitions were filed by various professors and teachers of the Universities claiming increase of age of superannuation to 65 years as per UGC norms, and that litigation came up to the Hon'ble Apex Court and by an ad-interim order passed in similar bunch of matters on 09.05.2011, passed in SLP Nos. 9198-9221/2011, which reads as under: - “List in the second week of July, 2011. In the meanwhile, the petitioners are permitted to continue in the premises earlier allotted to them on the same terms and conditions. The parties are permitted to complete their pleadings, in the meanwhile.”. 4. Although the present petitioner was also in the fray of litigation as intervener before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the same interim order was admittedly not passed in that case, but it is not disputed that aforesaid order was passed in similar cases. Ultimately, the SLP(s) came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 19.07.2013 and thus the issue of superannuation age, which was 60 years came to an end and that litigation terminated against the professors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1577/2013 Dr. R.L. Tamboli Vs. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University & Ors. Order dt:

07. 02/2014 3/7 5. The issue in the present case before this Court is (i) the petitioner was entitled to the same protection as was given to the other similarly situated persons under the interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 09.05.2011, quoted above, even though no specific order was passed in his case; and (ii) whether the penal rent charged by the respondent- University, which amount now raised to Rs.4,40,636/- deserves to be waived, wholly or partly or not.

6. Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajesh Punia, appearing for the respondent- M.L.S. University, Udaipur, submitted that as per the relevant Rule 8 (iii) (a) of the Rules for the Allotment of Residential Accommodation for Employees of Mohanlal Sukhadia University as approved by the Board of Management's Resolution No.10 in its Meeting held on 25.05.1999, the said penal rent cannot be waived or reduced by the respondent– University. The said Rule 8 (iii) (a) is quoted below for ready reference: -

“8. PERIOD FOR WHICH ALLOTMENT SUBSISTS AND THE CONCESSIONAL PERIOD FOR FURTHER RETENTION. (iii). On retirement, resignation, dismissal or removal from service: (a). If an employee to whom a residence is alloted retires or resigns or is dismissed or removed from the service or is required to surrender the residence under those rules, he/she will be entitled to retain the residence allotted to him/her on normal rent for two months from the date of handing over charge. However, this period can be extended up to 6 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1577/2013 Dr. R.L. Tamboli Vs. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University & Ors. Order dt:

07. 02/2014 4/7 months in appropriate cases by the Vice-Chancellor. If any employee fails to vacate the residential accommodation immediately on expiry of the period so allowed, he/she shall be deemed to be a trespasser and be liable to be evicted as such and a penal rent which shall be ten time the rent being paid shall be charged from him/her. This shall also apply to officers/employees on deputation to the University.”. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner along-with other similarly situated professors, was before the Court of Law in this Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, bonafidely contending that as per UGC norms, the retirement age should be increased to 65 years, and in that connection an interim order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.05.2011 permitting such persons/professors to continue in the premises earlier allotted to them 'on the same terms and conditions'. He, therefore, urged that even though no specific order was passed in the case, in which the petitioner was also allowed to intervene in the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the fact remains that the similar benefit deserved to be extended to the present petitioner also and at least for the period i.e. from 09.05.2011 when the interim order was made up to 09.07.2013, when the aforesaid bunch of SLP(s) came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as stated in reply filed by the respondent- University in the present case, no penal rent should have been charged from the petitioner and the petitioner is ready to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1577/2013 Dr. R.L. Tamboli Vs. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University & Ors. Order dt:

07. 02/2014 5/7 pay the penal rent for the balance period, though he has paid the normal rent for the whole period and the respondent University should not penalize their own professor for such bonafide litigation and in view of long period of his service. He also submitted that on this ground, the other retiral benefits of the petitioner have not been released by the respondent- University.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it is true that the relevant regulations approved by the Board of Management by the respondent- University, as quoted above, does not permit any such waiver of the penal rent which is as high as 10 times of normal rent, nor validity of Rule 8 (iii) (a) has been challenged in the present writ petition, however, the fact remains that not only the petitioner but most of such other professor/s in various States, were agitating the issue relating to increase of superannuation age before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the aforesaid interim order dated 19.05.2011 was passed in one of the bunch of such petitions only in respect of their University accommodation alloted to them to be continued on the same terms and conditions in view of pendency of that litigation.

9. It is obvious that such interim was intended to protect the interest of all the similarly placed persons, who were already in the litigation fray before the Hon'ble Supreme Court at that point of time. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that the petitioner was not entitled to retain the said accommodation on the same terms and conditions for that period. In the present writ petition, a coordinate S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1577/2013 Dr. R.L. Tamboli Vs. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University & Ors. Order dt:

07. 02/2014 6/7 bench of this Court while issuing notices to the respondents vide the order dated 21.02.2013 also passed an interim order, staying the effect and operation of the impugned notice dated 31.01.2013 (Annex.13) and restrained the respondents from taking any coercive measures against the petitioner and aforesaid interim order has remained in currency during the pendency of the present writ petition till today. Since the question is only relating to penal rent and not the normal rent, which the petitioner is said to have already paid, and if not paid, he undertakes to pay the normal rent for the entire period along-with the penal rent for the remaining period other than the period during which aforesaid stay order of Hon'ble Supreme Court continued, therefore, the case deserves to be sympathetically and objectively considered in these circumstances, specially where the petitioner having served the respondent- University as a Professor for long number of years, and now already having retired and having handed over the vacant possession of the accommodation allotted to him soon after dismissal of the SLP/s by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 19.07.2013 i.e. in 14.08.2013, within one month thereof.

10. Therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent- University to reduce the penal rent proportionately and waive the same for the period from 19.05.2011 to 19.07.2013 i.e. the date of interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the date of dismissal of the SLP/s of other similarly situated professors; and this extent, the penal rent/interest may not be charged from the petitioner. However, for the remaining period for S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1577/2013 Dr. R.L. Tamboli Vs. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University & Ors. Order dt:

07. 02/2014 7/7 which said penal rent has been levied and charged, the amount of penal rent would be payable by the petitioner/professor and to which learned counsel for the petitioner agreed and submitted that the petitioner undertakes to pay the said remaining amount. Since, the petitioner has already retired from the services on 30.06.2010 and his retiral dues are still withheld, it is directed that after recomputing the said amount of penal rent, as directed above, and after adjusting the said remaining amount, from the retiral dues of the petitioner, the balance amount of retiral dues may be released in his favour immediately.

11. With these observations and directions, the writ petition of the petitioner is disposed of. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

DJ/- 52