The Delhi High Court dismissed a retired NCERT employee’s plea against withholding part of his gratuity for overstaying in official accommodation. The bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that NCERT was within its rights to recover damages for unauthorised occupation but directed the institute to pay 12% interest on delayed settlement of dues.
“The petitioner was aware that he continued to occupy the government quarters without authorisation. There is no illegality in adjusting dues from gratuity,” the bench observed while disposing of the writ petition.
Background
Anil Kumar Jain, who retired as an Assistant from NCERT on May 31, 2011, was allotted a Type-III quarter in the NIE Campus during service. After superannuation, he sought to retain the quarter citing medical needs of his family. Despite repeated eviction notices, Jain continued to live in the accommodation till May 7, 2015—nearly four years beyond the permissible limit.
NCERT, invoking its internal housing rules, withheld ₹6.53 lakh from his gratuity to recover “damage charges” for unauthorised occupation. Jain challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed his claim in 2022. The present petition before the Delhi High Court was an appeal against that order.
Arguments from Both Sides
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, appearing for Jain, argued that the deduction violated Rule 73(9) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, which allows only up to 10% of gratuity to be withheld for such cases. He relied on R. Kapur v. Director of Inspection (1994) and a Delhi High Court judgment in Dhanwant Rai v. DTC (2004) to assert that non-vacation of government housing cannot justify complete withholding of pension benefits.
NCERT’s counsel, Abhishek Saket, countered by citing Rule 16(d) of the “Rules for Allotment of Residences to Council’s Employees,” which explicitly authorises the organisation to withhold a No Dues Certificate and retain full gratuity until the employee vacates official quarters. He further relied on Supreme Court rulings in Wazir Chand v. Union of India (2001) and ONGC v. V.U. Warrier (2005) that upheld such recoveries.
Court’s Observations
The bench agreed with NCERT, noting that the petitioner was repeatedly warned and had no valid justification for overstaying. “The petitioner was well aware that he was under unauthorised occupation and continued despite several notices,” Justice Chawla noted orally.
The court explained that as per the NCERT’s own rules and circulars, no dues certificate could be issued until the staff quarters were vacated, and full gratuity could be withheld lawfully till then.
Rejecting the plea that NCERT should have pursued eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act, the judges remarked that retaining dues was a sufficient and lawful safeguard. “The respondents, by withholding retiral benefits, were already secured. Non-initiation of eviction does not invalidate their right to recover damages,” the court observed.
Citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in V.U. Warrier, the bench reiterated that courts should not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of employees who wilfully overstay in government accommodation after retirement.
Decision
The court upheld NCERT’s deduction of ₹6.53 lakh from Jain’s gratuity, affirming that the withholding was justified under the organisation’s housing rules and supported by judicial precedent.
However, the judges took note of NCERT’s delay in releasing the remaining balance. The withheld amount of ₹1.17 lakh was paid only in March 2017, nearly two years after Jain vacated the quarters. Finding this unjustified, the court directed NCERT to pay interest at 12% per annum on the delayed sum from May 7, 2015, until the actual date of payment.
With this, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case Title and Number: Anil Kumar Jain v. National Council of Educational Research and Training & Anr. — W.P.(C) 5306/2023