http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: ANIRUDH PANDEY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/12/1994

BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 1129            1995 SCC  Supl.  (1) 212  JT 1995 (1)   407        1994 SCALE  (5)190

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: 1.   Leave granted. 2.   We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3.   Anirudh Pandey, the appellant herein, was employed with the  Bihar State Road Transport Corporation,respondent  No.1 [hereinafter referred to as ’the Corporation’.  While he was thus employed, he was allotted House No. 32772-2 on Road No. 26  at Adityapur Colony in Jamshedpur on June 7, 1970.   The said   house  belongs  to  the  Bihar  State  Hosing   Board [hereinafter  referred  to as ’the Board’].   The  appellant retired  on attaining the age of superannuation  on  January 31, 1992.  Since he was not paid his post retiral  benefits, viz.,  provident fund, gratuity, etc. by the Corporation  he filed  a  writ petition (C.W.J.C. no 3038/92) in  the  Patna High  Court.  The said writ petition was contested  by  thee Corporation.   The  stand of the Corporation  was  that  the appellant  had not vacated the house which was  allotted  to him while he was in service of the Corporation and that  the Corporation  was  ready  to pay all the legal  dues  of  the appellant  after  he  vacates the said  quarter.   The  writ petition  was disposed of by the High Court by  order  dated April 21, 1993 on the view that unless the house was vacated by  the  appellant he was not entitled to  his  post-retiral benefits.   The High Court directed the Appellant to  vacate the house and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the  Corporation and that the Corporation, after taking  the vacant  possession of the house would pay  the  post-retiral benefits  to  the appellant within a period of  three  weeks from  the  date  of  the vacation  of  the  house.   Feeling aggrieved by the said order of High Court the appellant  has filed this appeal. 4.   While the matter was pending before this Court, it  was pointed out that the allotment of the house which was in oc- cupation  of  the  appellant has been  house  which  was  in occupation of the appellant 409

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

has  been cancelled by the Board and allotment of the  house has  been  made  by the Board in  favour  of  Shradha  Kumar Pandey, son of the appellant.  Notice was, therefore  issued to  the Board to explain the circumstance in which the  said allotment  was  made.   In response to the  said  notice  an affidavit  of Shobha Kant Mishra was filed on behalf of  the Board.  From the said affidavit filed on behalf of the Board it  appears that House No. 327/2-2 has been  constructed  by the Board under the Subsidised Industrial Housing meant  for industrial  workers.  The said scheme envisages (i) sale  of houses  on hire purchase basis to workers; and (ii)  letting out of the houses on rent to the workers.  For letting out a house on rent the Scheme provides for allotment of the house to  the  worker  who is required to  submit  an  application through  his  employer.   Although, under  the  Scheme,  the allottee, i.e., the worker, is liable to pay the rent of the house and other rates ans taxes payable to the  municipality or  the  Government but thee same are required  to  be  paid every  month by the employer after deducting the  same  from the  monthly wages of the worker under the Payment of  Wages Act.   In the affidavit of Shobha Kant Mishra, it is  stated that at the end of June, 1992 a sum of Rs. 9,231.85p was due as  rent for the house in question ans that  the  Divisional Manager  of the Corporation was required to pay  the  amount but the same having not been paid, the Executive Engineer of the  Board, on July 3,1992, cancelled the allotment  of  the said house and,thereafter, by letter dated July 31,1992  the said  house  was  allotted in favour of  M/s  Ambika  Rubber Product,  Adiyapur  for  the residence  of  their  employee, Shradha Kumar Pandey, on rental basis.  It is further stated that the said allotment is subject to the condition that the allottee will have to pay the sum of Rs.9,231.85p, the total arrear against rent till June 1992. 5.   The  learned  counsel for the appellant  has  submitted that  rent of the house was deducted from the salary of  the appellant  by the Corporation from July 1,1970  to  December 31,1990  and  in  spite of such  deduction  the  Corporation failed to deposit the rent with the Board and on account  of the  said  default  on  the  part  of  the  corporation   in depositing the rent the allotment of the house was cancelled by  the  Board  and that the appellant cannot  be  held  re- sponsible  for the same ans the that the Corporation  cannot withhold  the post-retiral benefits of the appellant on  the ground on the ground that the appellant had failed to vacate and surrender the house to the Corporation. 6.   In our opinion, the said submission of learned  counsel for the appellant must be accepted.  Since the allotment  of the house which was in occupation of the appellant has  been cancelled by the Board on account of the failure on the part of  the  Corporation to pay the rent and other  charges  for thee  same  it is not open to the Corporation to  blame  the appellant  for not having surrendered the house to the  Cor- poration.   In  the  circumstance the  Corporation  was  not justified  in withholding the post-retiral benefits  of  the appellant on the ground that he has failed to surrender  the possession of the house to the Corporation. 7.   The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the order passed  by the  High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed  by the  appellant  is  allowed  with  the  direction  that  the Corporation will pay the post-retiral  410 benefits  legally  payable to the appellant as well  as  the amount  of  the house rent deducted from the salary  of  the appellant  which was not paid to the Board.  The  said  dues shall be paid by the Corporation to pay the said dues within

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

this period, the Corporation would be liable to pay interest @  15% per annum on the same from the date of expiry of  the said period of four months till the said dues are paid.  The appellant will be entitled to his costs which is assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. 411