STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus K.N. DUTT

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 327 · Decided: 24-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 'i--
I 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
v. 
K.N. DUTT 
FEBRUARY 24, 1995 
[J.S. VERMA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.J 
B 
Service Law-Deduction of Government dues from Death-cum-Retire-
ment Gratuity-Legality of-Order of High Court justifying recovery of Govern-
ment dues-Writ Petition--Division Bench of High Court held that amount 
has been deducted illegally-Earlier order passed by Single Judge ig-
C 
nored-Abuse of process of Court-Order passed by Division Bench is patently 
unsustainable, improper and illegal. 
The respondent, a retired Chief Engineer of the Irrigation Dt:part-
ment in the Haryana State retired on 30-11-1989. While in service the D 
respondent had availed of House Building Advance and Motor Car Ad· 
vance loans against gratuity in the years 1973 and 1976. He executed an 
agreement and signed an undertaking that in case he failed to repay the 
loan, the same was to be recovered from his gratuity with interest at the 
time of his retirement from the service. Disciplinary proceedings were 
initiated against the respondent, which resulted in withholding of the E 
outstanding retirement benefits. The respondent filed Civil Writ Petition 
for appropriate reliefs. A Division Bench of the High Court directed the 
State tO release to the petitioner therein all pensionary benefits to which 
he was entitle~ to under the ru'es as the charges were not served on him 
before his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. Tht! respon· F 
dent herein initiated proceeding in contempt for implementation of the 
judgment. Dismissing the contempt petition, the High Cou~ by an order 
dated 28-4-1993 held that the State was competent to deduct the govern· 
ment dues from the gratuity of the petitioner and that after deduction of 
the dues from the gratuity the balance amount had been disbursed to the 
petitioner and the Court's order had been duly complied with. The .con· G 
tempt petition was dismissed. The order so passed by the Single Judge had 
become final. The respondent filed writ petition and prayed for a declara-
tion that the deduction of the Government dues from the Death-cum· 
retirement gratuity amount was illegal and ultra vires and for a direction 
to refund the said amount along with interest. Allowing the petition, the H 
327 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 2 S.C.R. 
A Division bench of the High Court held that no inquiry was pending againt 
the respondent nor any Government dues were to be realized from him 
and so there was no legal basis to make any deduction in the amot1nt of 
gratuity payable and directed the appellant to· refund the amount deducted 
illegally by the State Government from the gratuity of the respondent. 
B Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : In the instance case, the order passed by the Single Judge 
on 28-4-1993, justifying recovery of Government dues from the gratuity 
C payable to the superannuated employee, had become final. It was not taken 
in appeal before any forum. The order binds the parties thereto. In the 
Civil Writ Petition filed by the respondent assailing the deduction of the 
govenment dues from Death-cum-retirement gratuity and praying for a 
direction to refund the amount deducted, without adverting to the prior 
D proceedings and in particular the order passed by the Court in contempt 
petition, the Division Bench allowed the prayer of the respondent and held 
that the amount had been deducted illegally by the State Government from 
the gratuity of the respondent which should be refunded forthwith. The 
Division Bench totally ignored the earlier order dated 28-4-1993, passed 
by the court. The respondent, a retired senior officer, himself owned a duty 
E to bring to the notice of the court the earlier order. This was a serious 
lapse. It is an abuse of the process of the court. The Division Bench of the-
High Court passed the order in a casual manner in holding that the sum 
was deducted illegally by the State Government and in ordering the refund. 
The order so passed was patently unsustainable, improper and illegal. 
F Such a plea was not open to the respondent in the light of the earlier order 
of the Court. The Division Bench acted illegally in entertaining such a 
prayer and allowing it, totally ignoring the earlier order of the same court 
passed in contempt petition. [331-A-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3007 of 
G 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.93 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.W

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.