IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10243 of 2009 Binay Kumar Diwan, son of late Shiv Shankar Prasad, resident of Station Road Gaya, Police station Kotwali Gaya, District Gaya……………………………………………………………………..…….Petitioner Versus 1. Rajendra Agricultural University through its Registrar, 2. The Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University. 3. The Comptroller, Rajendra Agricultural University. 4. The Director, Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University. 5. The Chairman, Grievance Redressal Committee, Rajendra Agricultural University, All at Pusa, Police Station – Pusa, District Samastipur……………………………………………………..Respondents ----------- 3. 14.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. When a citizen is employed by the State or its instrumentalities, relationship of master and servant is established. As per rank and post for which appointment is made, the employee is entitled for certain facilities and perks. Besides other things, the employee, in certain circumstances, is also entitled for an official residence at a nominal or reduced rent. In respect of the said quarter which is allotted to him, as per rank and post, he gets right of occupation on payment or deduction of rent 2 as per the laws governing the establishment of the employer. The day the employee superannuates from service of the employer, the relationship of employer and employee ceases and all the facilities and perks to which he was entitled as an employee of the establishment are liable to be withdrawn. On the other hand, he becomes entitled to retiral benefits, upon successful completion of service and upon his retirement, from his employer. The Rules governing service conditions and grant of pensionary benefits to a retired employee prescribe that on the day of retirement, his entire claims must be calculated and paid to him. In principle, this must be done on the day of his retirement. But in practice, this is delayed and in many cases, the dues of the employee and sanction of retiral benefits remains pending for months and years. The employer takes it casually and compels the employee keep on looking for the financial aid, to which he becomes entitled upon superannuation and at the fag end of his life, for months together. On the other hand, employers are very particular in 3 withdrawing all the perks and facilities which are provided to the employee during his service tenure. Therefore, strict Rules are framed by them for withdrawal of the same which includes vacation of the quarter within the fixed time failing which penal rent are deducted from the pensionary benefits of the retired employee. Such a Rule of the University has been notified now in the Official Gazette dated 18th September, 2007, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure- A to the counter affidavit. It is not disputed that after his superannuation with effect from 31.07.2006, petitioner was re-engaged by the authorities of the University and continued to discharge his duty till 02.02.2007. Therefore, till then he was legitimately entitled for continuing in the quarter. As per Rules within four months he had to vacate the same failing which he was liable to pay penal rent. It is not in dispute that within those four months, pension and gratuity of the petitioner was not sanctioned and the authorities of the University delayed the same and sanctioned it only on 29.01.2008. 4 Still the University is claiming penal rent from the petitioner for continuing in the quarter beyond four months. It is an admitted fact that petitioner vacated the quarter with effect from 30.11.2007 even prior to sanction of the pension and gratuity. That means, without getting any financial aid to which he was entitled upon his superannuation and at the fag end of his life, he complied the requirements of law and vacated the quarter. On his part, petitioner has acted bona fide. It is actually the University which had delayed the matter and did not sanction pension and gratuity of the petitioner in time. Therefore, this Court cannot find fault with the petitioner in vacating the quarter beyond four months after 2.2.2007. As the University had not sanctioned pension and gratuity of the petitioner, it was not justified for the University to claim penal rent from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 09.10.2006 passed in CWJC NO. 13968 of 2004 and other 5 analogous cases in respect of the same University wherein this Court directed the University to refund the amount of penal rent realized from the petitioners. The said order which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ application was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court, vide Annexure-7. This Court is in agreement with the said order of the learned Single Judge, as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the University is directed to refund penal rent deducted from the arrears / salary of the petitioner which is to the tune of Rs.22000/-. The refund of the amount must be made to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)