JUDGMENT
Hima Kohli, J.
1. These writ petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal by passing a common judgment and order, as counsels for the parties have stated that the parties are common in both the proceedings and the facts of the cases are the same. As the genesis of the dispute between the parties arose in the proceedings which culminated in the filing of WP(C) No. 2825/2000 by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the facts of the said case are taken note of.
2. The challenge has been made by the petitioner, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as `the petitioner Corporation’) in WP(C) No. 2825/2000, to the judgment dated 17th January, 2000 passed by the Additional District Judge allowing the appeal of respondent No. 1 filed under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `the PP Act’) and setting aside the order dated 31st January, 1998 passed by the Estate Officer directing respondent No. 1 to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 3,239/- per month under Section 7 of the PP Act with effect from 1st April, 1988 to 3rd April, 1992 in respect of staff quarter No. 7, H-51, Lakshmi Insurance Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.
3. The undisputed facts of the case are that on 24th July, 1981, respondent No. 1 who was an employee of the petitioner Corporation, was allotted staff quarter No. 7, H-51, Lakshmi Insurance Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi at a monthly license fee of Rs. 215/-. Respondent No. 1 ceased to be in the service of the petitioner Corporation with effect from 1st January, 1988. On 12th March, 1988, the petitioner Corporation served upon respondent No. 1 a legal notice terminating the leave and license agreement in respect of the said staff quarter with effect from 1st January, 1988. At the same time, respondent No. 1 was called upon to pay damages @ Rs. 21.45 per day with effect from 1st January, 1988 till the date respondent No. 1 handed over vacant possession of the staff quarter to the petitioner Corporation, as also paid the electricity and water charges on actual basis.
4. While issuing the aforesaid notice, the petitioner Corporation also withheld the retirement benefits that accrued in favor of respondent No. 1 in terms of clause 4 of the agreement executed by respondent No. 1 which entitled the petitioner Corporation to withhold the terminal benefits payable to an employee under the Staff Regulations, without any liability upon the petitioner Corporation to pay any compensation by way of interest or otherwise for such a withholding in the event of failure on the part of respondent No. 1 to deliver possession of the premises on determination or termination of the license or service for any reason whatsoever.
5. On 15th June, 1988, the petitioner Corporation served another legal notice upon respondent No. 1 stating inter alia that as respondent No. 1 had failed to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner Corporation, he was liable to pay damages @ Rs. 3,239/- per month with effect from 1st April, 1988, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Even thereafter when the respondent No. 1 did not vacate the premises, the petitioner Corporation invoked the PP Act and approached the Estate Officer by filing an appropriate application.
6. The Estate Officer issued a notice to show cause to respondent No. 1 under Section 4 read with Section 7(3) of the PP Act. On 8th November, 1989, the Estate Officer passed an order under Section 5(1) of the PP Act holding that respondent No. 1 was in unauthorized occupation of the staff quarter with effect from 1st January, 1988 and that the petitioner Corporation was entitled to get him evicted and further directed respondent No. 1 to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the staff quarter to the petitioner Corporation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The Estate Officer also passed a separate order dated 8th November, 1989 on the application filed by the petitioner Corporation under Section 7(2) and 7(2A) of the PP Act assessing the damages payable by respondent No. 1 at Rs. 56,816.95 paise up to 30th September, 1989. Respondent No. 1 was also held liable to pay further damages @ Rs. 3,239/- per month along with water and electricity charges on actual basis. The aforesaid amount was directed to be paid by respondent No. 1 along with interest @ 10% p.a. to be calculated on the amount outstanding as on 4th August, 1988 and on each month’s damages as it fell due, from the due date till the date of payment.
7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order passed by the Estate Officer, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Delhi on 7th December, 1989. An injunction was granted in favor of respondent No. 1 staying his eviction from the staff quarter. On 21st January, 1992, the said appeal was dismissed in default on account of the non-appearance of the respondent No. 1.
8. On 27th March, 1992, respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Additional District Judge for restoration of the appeal in respect of both the orders passed by the Estate Officer. However, as there was no stay operating in favor of respondent No. 1 thereafter and possession of the premises was taken over by the petitioner Corporation from respondent No. 1 on 4th April, 1992, on 31st March, 1993, he withdrew his appeal against the order of eviction dated 8th November, 1989 passed by the Estate Officer. Thus the appeal of respondent No. 1 against the order dated 8th November, 1989 passed by the Estate Officer assessing damages was restored and decided by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 3rd June, 1997, by which the case was directed to be remanded back to the Estate Officer for re-assessment of damages as per law. The Additional District Judge disposed of the appeal while holding as below:
…Without expressing any opinion on the guidelines of the LIC referred before me and in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the case is remanded back to the Estate Officer for reassessment of damages which the appellant is liable to pay for the period of his overstay in the premises in question. Estate Officer will be entitled to take into account the evidence which is already there on record, on the aspect of the damages in the light of the guidelines of LIC regrading quantification of damages, to be charged from an employee of the LIC for the period of his overstay in the premises after the retirement. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order in so far as it relates to recovery of damages is concerned is quashed and the case is sent back to the E.O. for reassessment of damages as per law….
9. As a result of the aforementioned order passed by the Additional District Judge, a second round of litigation took place. The matter was remanded back to the Estate Officer who passed an order dated 31st January, 1998 directing respondent No. 1 to pay damages @ Rs. 3,239/- per month with effect from 1st April, 1988 to 3rd April, 1992 totalling to Rs. 1,61,073.18. While so deciding, the Estate Officer held that the Circular dated 28th June, 1985 was not applicable to respondent No. 1 and awarded damages at the same rate as imposed by the earlier order dated 8th November, 1989. After making adjustment of Rs. 13,027.80 received by the petitioner Corporation from the respondent No. 1, an amount of Rs. 1,48,045.38 was held to be due and payable by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner Corporation. Interest on the aforesaid amount was however not awarded by the Estate Officer for the reason that the petitioner Corporation had withheld the retiral dues of the respondent No. 1 and adjustment of the damages awarded had to be made by the petitioner Corporation from the said amount.
10. A third round of litigation took place when the respondent No. 1 assailed the aforesaid order dated 31st January, 1998 by filing an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Delhi under Section 9 of the PP Act. After hearing the counsels for the parties, the Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the Circular dated 28th June, 1985, clause 10 whereof stipulated that in all cases of overstay beyond one month from the end of the month of retirement, damages/mesne profits should be recovered @ three times the standard license fee calculated at 3 1/2% net return basis for the entire period of overstay from the date of retirement, was applicable to the facts of the present case. It was further held that the said Circular ought to have been considered by the Estate Officer under Rule 8(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `the PP Rules’) which mandates that in assessing the damages for unauthorized use and occupation of any public premises, the Estate Officer shall take into consideration “any other matter relevant for the purpose of assessing the damages”. Thus by applying the Circular of the petitioner Corporation, the damages payable by respondent No. 1 were assessed @ Rs. 21.45 per day, and respondent No. 1 was directed to deposit the said amount for the period from 1st January, 1988 to 4th April, 1992 within one month from the date of the order and further directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the amount falling due till its recovery. The petitioner Corporation was directed to adjust the aforesaid amount payable by the respondent No. 1 against his retirement benefits withheld by the petitioner Corporation, without any interest being payable on the amounts so adjusted.
11. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order dated 17th January, 2000, the petitioner Corporation filed the present writ petition in which at the time of issuing notice, the operation of the impugned judgment dated 17th January, 2000 was stayed.
12. It is relevant to note that respondent No. 1 had also preferred a writ petition being WP(C) No. 2564/1989 praying inter alia for directions to the petitioner Corporation herein for release of his retirement dues with other benefits along with interest and for quashing the proceedings under the PP Act. Vide order dated 7th September, 1989, notice in the said writ petition was restricted to the prayer for release of the retiral benefits. It is undisputed that the retiral benefits of the respondent No. 1 totalled to Rs. 2,08,998.83 and that during the pendency of the said writ petition, in October, 1992, the petitioner Corporation forwarded a cheque dated 21st October, 1992 to the respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 28,088.14 stated to be payable towards his balance retiral dues after deducting a sum of Rs. 1,80,910.69 from his actual retiral dues, on account of recovery towards damages, interest etc. up to 3rd April, 1992, the date on which possession of the staff quarter was taken from the respondent No. 1. (Rs. 1,93,938.49 being the actual amount claimed to be due to the petitioner Corporation, out of which credit for a sum of Rs. 13,027.80 was given to the respondent No. 1 as the said amount had already been received by the petitioner Corporation from the respondent No. 1, but was kept in a suspense account). It is also a matter of record that though respondent No. 1 received the said cheque for Rs. 28,088.14, he did not encash the same. The aforesaid writ petition is also pending adjudication and is being decided along with the present petition. During the pendency of the present proceedings, the respondent No. 1 expired on 17th February, 2000 and his legal heirs were duly brought on the record.
13. Counsel for the petitioner Corporation submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Additional District Judge ought not to have taken into consideration the Circular dated 28th June, 1985 issued by the Petitioner Corporation and relied upon by respondent No. 1, the same being an administrative Circular and not binding upon the Estate Officer to assess the damages in terms thereof, for the reason that the PP Act lays down a procedure under Rule 8 of the Rules for assessing the damages and the same had to be followed by the Estate Officer. It was further submitted that once the petitioner Corporation had taken recourse to the provisions of the PP Act, then the procedure laid down under the Act and the Rules had to be strictly followed and damages could not be assessed on the basis of the Circular for the reason that the said Circular did not specify as to what would be the market rent which the respondent No. 1 was liable to pay. Thus, according to the petitioner Corporation, the Additional District Judge fell into error by taking into consideration the said Circular for assessing the damages payable by respondent No. 1. In support of the said contention, counsel for the petitioner Corporation relied on a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Uttam Prakash Bansal and Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. reported as , to state that the Circulars/guidelines do not stand as a bar in initiation of proceedings in view of the clear statutory provisions under the Act.
14. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioner Corporation that if at all the Additional District Judge could have considered the said Circular, then he ought to have also taken into consideration the subsequent Circulars dated 30th June, 1989 and 14th July, 1990 by which the said Circular dated 28th July, 1985 was modified to the extent that it was stipulated therein that the damages should not exceed the market rent. It was also stated that clause 6 of the Circular dated 28th June, 1985 which entitled the petitioner Corporation to claim damages as mentioned in the third notice, was overlooked while passing the impugned order. It was urged by the counsel for the petitioner Corporation that the Additional District Judge failed to appreciate that if the damages were to be assessed on the basis of the Circular dated 28th June, 1985, then the same would result in damages being levied at a rate much less than the market rent , i.e. @ only three times the license fee, which would result in a situation wherein an employee in service would end up paying far more for a staff quarter as against a retired employee.
15. Lastly, it was contended that the PP Act prescribes a procedure for evicting unauthorized occupants from public premises and Rule 8 of the Rules, framed under Section 18 of the PP Act mandates the Estate Officer to take into consideration certain requirements stipulated therein in assessing damages for unauthorized use and occupation of any public premises. He urged that Clause (e) of Rule 8 is to be interpreted by applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis, and as the said clause does not refer to any administrative Circulars, therefore, it can be interpreted only in the context of clauses (a) to (d) of Rule 8 and thus damages could be assessed only on the basis of the Act and the Rules and not on the basis of administrative Circulars which have no binding effect on the Estate officer.
16. Counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner Corporation cannot be permitted to wriggle out of its Circular dated 28th June, 1985 and the Additional District Judge was justified in allowing the appeal of respondent No. 1 as the Circular was applicable to all the employees of the petitioner Corporation. It was submitted that if there already existed a rule, the same will apply and if there is an absence or vacuum in the Rules, then the executive instructions, guidelines, administrative orders etc. will cover the field and hence in this context, the Circular issued by the petitioner Corporation is of relevance as it is all inclusive in nature and takes into consideration even the situations regarding which the Act invoked by the petitioner Corporation, is silent. Counsel for respondent No. 1 sought to draw support from the following judgments to state that the executive instructions are held to be supplemental to statutory Rules and were rightly taken into consideration by the Additional District Judge while passing the impugned order:
(i) Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Yadaorao Jagannath Kumbhare and Ors. .
(ii) N.K. Pankajakshan Nair v. P.V. Jayaraj and Ors. .
(iii) Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and Ors. .
17. It was further submitted that the other Circulars dated 30th June, 1989 and 14th July, 1990 are not of any relevance inasmuch as the same were neither produced nor relied upon by the petitioner Corporation before the court below and in fact, the Circulars were issued only after the retirement of respondent No. 1, i.e. after 31st December, 1987.
18. I have heard the rival contentions of the counsels for the parties which pivot around the applicability of the Circular dated 28th June, 1985 issued by the petitioner Corporation, as also the interpretation of Rule 8 of the Rules. Before proceeding with the case, it will be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Rules and Act. Section 18 of the PP Act empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Section 18(2)(e) states as below:
18. Power to make rules.
(1)xxx
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:
xxx
(e) the manner in which damages for unauthorised occupation may be assessed and the principles which may be taken into account in assessing such damages.
19. In the terms of the aforesaid legislative provision, the PP Rules were drafted and notified by the Central Government. Rule 8 which is relevant for the purposes of deciding the present case deals with assessment of damages and states as below:
8. Assessment of damages- In assessing damages for unauthorised use and occupation of any public premises the estate officer shall take into consideration the following matter, namely:
(a) the purpose and the period for which the public premises were in unauthorised occupation;
(b) the nature, size and standard of the accommodation available in such premises;
(c) the rent that would have been realised if the premises had been let rent for the period of unauthorised occupation to a private person;
(d) any damage done to the premises during the period of unauthorised occupation;
(e) any other matter relevant for the purpose of assessing the damages.
20. Coming to the Circular dated 28th June, 1985 issued by the petitioner Corporation, the same is entitled `Vacation of staff quarters on retirement’. The said Circular was issued by the Executive Director(P) of the petitioner Corporation, in supercession of the earlier instructions and was made effective from 1st July, 1985. The said Circular envisages various situations that would arise upon an employee occupying staff quarters becoming due for retirement. The said Circular envisages issuance of three notices to a retiring employee, the first one being three months before his retirement. If he does not vacate the staff quarters on the date of his retirement, the second notice is directed to be issued within a week of his retirement. If after one month from the end of the month in which the employee retires, he does not vacate the staff quarter, a third notice is directed to be issued to him. If an employee fails to vacate the staff quarter even after the third notice, then the Circular proposes the following action:
6. If the employee fails to vacate the premises inspite of the third notice steps may be taken to obtain vacant possession of the premises, while taking such legal action a prayer may be included claiming damages/mesne profits as per notice in addition to the prayer for ejectment. If however, before filing the suits there is a settlement, such settlement shall be only by charging damages/mesne profits as indicated in para 10.
The following steps be taken in addition to the above in order to force the employees to vacate the quarters:
xxx
7. Payment of retirement benefits shall be withheld to the extent specified below:
a) Provident Fund-The entire Provident Fund Contribution of the Corporation in the employee’s account.
b) Gratuity & Additional Gratuity: Gratuity payable to Class-II, III and IV employees under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 shall not be withheld even though the employee or his family has not vacated the Staff Quarters. However, if the Gratuity payable under the (Staff) Regulations is more than that admissible under the Act, such excess amount shall be withheld. In the case of Class-I Officers, the entire gratuity shall be withheld.
c) Entire cash benefit in lieu of unutilised Privilege leave.
8. Simultaneously, efforts should be made to obtain vacant possession of the quarters by taking advantage of the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 wherever PP Act is applicable.
9. xxx
10. In all cases of overstayal beyond one month from the end of the month of retirement, damages/mesne profits should be recovered @ 3 times standard license fee calculated at 3 1/2% net return basis for the entire period of overstayal; from the date of retirement.
21. A perusal of the aforesaid Circular shows that para 10 thereof which stipulates levy of damages/mesne profits to be recovered @ three times the standard license fee calculated at 3 1/2% net return basis for the entire period of overstay from the date of retirement, comes into play only in the circumstances as envisaged in para 6 of the Circular. The last line of para 6 of the Circular makes it evident that only in a case where there is a settlement with the employee before initiation of legal proceedings, a settlement could be arrived at by charging the damages/mesne profits as indicated in para 10. However, the said Circular does not foreclose the right of the petitioner Corporation to claim damages at market rate from an employee who fails to vacate the premises inspite of institution of legal proceedings against him.
22. The facts of the present case reveal that respondent No. 1 retired from service on 1st January, 1988. As he did not vacate the staff quarter even after expiry of two months from the date of his retirement, a notice for vacation of the staff quarter was served upon him on 12th March, 1988. But he did not comply. As a result, a second notice for vacation of the staff quarter was served on respondent No. 1 on 15th June, 1988, after waiting for a further period of three months. As respondent No. 1 failed to vacate the staff quarter despite two notices issued to him, the petitioner Corporation had to initiate legal proceedings against him under the PP Act for recovery of possession as well as for recovery of damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the staff quarters under his occupation. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Estate Officer, the respondent No. 1 wrote a letter on 18th November, 1988 to the Estate Officer stating that he intended to vacate the staff quarter by the end of May 1989. However, he did not abide by the said undertaking and the records reveal that respondent No. 1 remained in occupation of the staff quarter till 4th April, 1992 when possession of the premises was taken over by the petitioner Corporation from respondent No. 1 after the appeal filed by him against the eviction order passed against him by the Estate officer, was dismissed in default on 21st January, 1992. Thus, respondent No. 1 unauthorizedly and illegally remained in possession and occupation of the staff quarter from 1st January, 1988 to 4th April, 1992, i.e. for a period of four years and three months.
23. The contention of counsel for the respondent No. 1 that his case is covered by the terms and conditions of the Circular dated 28th June, 1985 issued by the petitioner Corporation is not acceptable for the reason that para 10 thereof is applicable only in circumstances where prior to initiation of litigation, the petitioner Corporation enters into a settlement with a retired employee. In the present case, the period of overstay of respondent No. 1 runs into more than four years. To arrive at a conclusion that even in circumstances where a retired employee fails to vacate the staff quarter for such a long duration and instead compels the employer to seek its legal remedies by invoking the provisions of the PP Act, the Circular dated 28th June, 1985 alone can be relied upon for the purposes of assessing the damages, shall make a mockery of the entire process and amount to putting a premium on the illegal action of the respondent No. 1 in remaining in unauthorized occupation of a public premises for such a long duration, resulting in depriving another employee of the petitioner Corporation of his rightful entitlement to allotment of the staff quarters. Any such interpretation given to paras 6 and 10 of the Circular shall amount to permitting the respondent No. 1 to have his cake and eat it too.
24. The aim and object of legislating the PP Act was to ensure that the facility of providing residential accommodation to the employees is not misused by them after their retirement and instead of compelling the authorities to have the public premises evicted by taking recourse to filing a civil suit which is a long drawn and time consuming procedure, the PP Act was legislated. Rule 8 of the PP Rules lays down the guidelines to be taken into consideration by the Estate Officer in assessing damages for unauthorized use and occupation of any public premises. The said Rule also permits the Estate Officer to assess the damages by taking into consideration the rent that would have been realised if the premises had been let out for the period of unauthorized occupation to a private person, in other words, the market rate that the premises would have fetched in ordinary course.
25. Here is a case where the respondent No. 1 after retiring from the service of the petitioner Corporation did not vacate the staff quarter under his occupation for a long period of over four years and at the same time, has taken a plea of being exempted from paying damages for the period of unauthorized occupation at market rate by claiming to be governed by the Circular dated 28th June, 1985 which on the face of it cannot be invoked by him. It is not a case where the respondent No. 1 entered into any settlement with the petitioner Corporation before the latter initiated legal proceedings against him. Instead, respondent No. 1 resisted vacating the staff quarter at every step and the same has resulted in a prolonged litigation spanning almost two decades, during which period, the respondent No. 1 has expired.
26. Had it been a case where the respondent No. 1 had vacated the staff quarter within the time stipulated under the Circular in question, i.e., within one week of his retirement or within one month thereafter or beyond a period of one month but still within a reasonable period thereafter, the said Circular would have become applicable. But when admittedly the respondent No. 1 did not vacate the staff quarters within the stipulated time or even after service of notices issued to him and the petitioner Corporation had to resort to legal remedies by invoking the provisions of the PP Act, respondent No. 1 cannot be heard to state that the Estate Officer was under an obligation to charge only @ three times the standard license fee calculated at 3 1/2% net return basis for the entire period of overstay. Counsel for the petitioner Corporation is justified in stating that if damages were assessed on the basis of the guidelines contained in para 10 of the Circular dated 28th June, 1985 which is not even attracted to a case like the present one, then the same would be far less than the market rent and the net result would be that no employee of the petitioner Corporation would vacate the premises upon retirement and instead, continue to retain the same unauthorizedly by paying charges far less than the market rent and even far less than the charges payable by an employee in the service of the petitioner Corporation, as compensation payable towards retaining the staff quarter. Such an interpretation to the Circular would also jeopardise the interest of the rightful claimants waiting in the queue for allotment of a staff quarter, for the reason that levy of damages at such a rate even after initiation of legal proceedings would conversely act as an incentive to retiring/retired employees to cling on to the staff quarters instead of vacating the same in time.
27. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is unable to agree with the observations made in the impugned judgment to the effect that the Circular does not prescribe different procedure to be adopted by the departmental officers on the one hand and the Estate Officer or the courts on the other hand. As noted above, para 6 of the Circular makes a clear cut distinction between the pre-litigation scenario and the post-litigation scenario and para 10 becomes applicable only in cases envisaged in para 6, i.e., where litigation has not been initiated by the petitioner Corporation and a settlement takes place with an employee.
28. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment dated 17th January, 2000 is not found to be sustainable and is set aside. As the impugned judgment is being set aside on the ground that the Circular dated 28th June, 1985 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court need not return any finding on the issue as to whether the Estate Officer is barred from examining and taking into consideration any Circular or other administrative instructions/guidelines issued by the petitioner Corporation, under Clause (e) of Rule 8 of the PP Rules while assessing damages for unauthorized occupation of public premises under the PP Act; nor is it considered necessary to decide the plea of estoppel against statute as raised by the petitioner Corporation.
29. In view of the fact that the impugned judgment is set aside, the petitioner Corporation is held entitled to receive damages to the tune of Rs. 1,61,073.18 from the respondent No. 1 in terms of the order of the Estate Officer dated 31st January, 1998. As the retiral dues of the respondent No. 1 amounting to Rs. 2,08,998.83 were withheld by the petitioner Corporation in terms of Clause 4 of the license agreement executed by the respondent No. 1, after deducting an amount of Rs. 1,61,073.18 payable towards damages for unauthorised occupation of the staff quarter, as assessed by the Estate Officer, a balance sum of Rs. 47,925.65 was refundable to the respondent No. 1 as on 3rd April, 1992, the date on which he was evicted from the staff quarter. After giving credit of Rs. 13,027.00 forwarded by the respondent No. 1 and lying deposited with the petitioner corporation in a suspense account, the Estate Officer finally arrived at the figure of Rs. 1,48,045.38 assessed as damages payable by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner corporation for unauthorized occupation of the staff quarters from 1st April, 1988 to 3rd April, 1992, without levy of interest. Thus, after deduction of Rs. 1,48,045.38 from the retiral dues of Rs. 2,08,998.83, the respondent No. 1 was entitled to receive back the balance retirement dues of Rs. 60,953.45 from the petitioner Corporation as on 4th April, 1992. However, in October 1992, the petitioner Corporation claimed a sum of Rs. 1,93,938.49 from the respondent No. 1 and as per its calculations, forwarded a cheque for Rs. 28,088.14 dated 21st October, 1992 to him stated to be the balance amount payable after making deductions, which cheque remained unencashed by the respondent No. 1.
30. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner Corporation is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 60,953.45 to the respondent No. 1 on account of the balance retirement dues along with interest payable @ 9% p.a. with effect from 4th April, 1992 till 21st October, 1992. Interest shall, however, be payable by the petitioner Corporation @ 9% p.a. on Rs. 32,865.31 (Rs. 60,953.45 less Rs. 28,088.14) with effect from 22nd October, 1992 till the amount is received by the legal heirs of the respondent No. 1.
31. Both the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. No orders as to costs.