Delhi HC Allows Release Of Terminal Benefits From Parent Organisation On Account Of Lien

The Delhi High Court, on July 27, allowed a writ petition filed by a government employee in which he had claimed himself entitled to terminal benefits from parent organisation even during during deputation in other organisation.

The precise question before Justice Rekha Palli was, whether an employee, while holding his lien in the parent organization, can claim that the period when he was working on deputation in other organization, be counted as service in the parent organization, for the purpose of computation of his terminal benefits?

Facts

Petitioner joined Delhi University (DU) (Respondent No.1) as Assistant Registrar in 2001. 

Before joining DU, petitioner had, from 1985 till 2001, served in various govt departments. His entire past 16 years and 4 months of service was to be considered for the purpose of computation of his terminal benefits.

Being a non-teaching staff, petitioner had to reach the age of superannuation at 60 years. He was promoted to deputy registrar in 2008 and thereafter appointed to the post of director in National Book Trust (NBT)

In 2014, Ambedkar University (AU) (Respondent No.3), issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of registrar to be filled on a five-year tenure basis.

The petitioner applied for the post through proper channel. In advance application, the petitioner submitted that in the event of his selection, he may be relieved from the services of DU either on Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) or on deputation. DU informed the petitioner that his request could not be entertained as only an application for a post through direct recruitment could be forwarded.

Later, petitioner was called for an interview by AU after which petitioner requested DU to issue a No-Objection-Certificate so that he may appear in the said interview and also prayed that if selected he be relieved for joining the post of registrar with AU while retaining line in DU. 

Petitioner was provided with the NOC as requested by him and he was selected in the interview. Hence, he joined AU.

Vide letter dated 29.07.2015, petitioner was, after acceptance of his technical resignation, relieved from DU to join as registrar of AU. 

During the period from 29.07.2015 till 28.06.2016, while the right of lien of the petitioner was still continuing with the DU, he continued to pay monthly contributions towards General Provident Fund, Groups Insurance etc to the DU. The said payments were accepted by DU vide letters.

After 28.07.2016, the remittances were rejected by DU on the ground that his lien stood terminated. 

Prior to this, the petitioner had written letters seeking voluntary retirement but he was informed that as his lien stood terminated, his request for retirement could not be accepted.

Thereafter, the petitioner approached DU and sought release of his terminal benefits.

He was informed that his technical resignation on 29.07.2015 had been accepted therefore he was entitled to benefits only till 29.07.2015 and not till 28.07.2016.

Hence, the instant writ petition.

Decision

The Court observed that, “A bare perusal of the relieving order dated 29.07.2015 issued by respondent no.1 shows that, while accepting his technical resignation, and relieving the petitioner from his substantive post w.e.f. 29.07.2015, so as to enable him to report to respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 1 had, in no uncertain terms, informed him that his lien would be retained for a period of one year from the date of his relieving.”

The Court noted that the DU had chosen to retain the lien of the petitioner in DU till 29.07.2015, and therefore as a consequence thereof, the petitioner’s regular service in AU began only with effect from 29.07.2016, as was also evident from the communication dated 02.12.2016 issued by AU, cannot now be allowed to contend that the petitioner's service beyond 29.07.2015 will not be counted.

There was no denial to the fact that the amount remitted by  was accepted by DU without any objection whatsoever.

The Court held that, “looked at from any angle, I have no hesitation in holding that that the petitioner is justified in claiming his terminal benefits from respondent no. 1 by counting his service till 28.07.2016.”