HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.15057 of 2000 ORDER: The action of the Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam (TTD) in recovering an amount of Rs.1,45,769.94 ps. from the commutation value of pension of the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition as without authority of law. The petitioner, hitherto employed as a Deputy Executive Officer and the Director of S.V.Central Library and Research Centre of the respondent-TTD, has filed the present Writ Petition questioning the action of the respondents in recovering the commutation value of pension sanctioned to him of Rs.1,45,980/-. The break-up of the amount of Rs.1,45,769.94 ps reads as under: 1. House rent :Rs. 89,458.74 2. Vehicle Loan recovery :Rs. 41,007.00 3. IIA advance pending :Rs. 1,500.00 4. Electrical Charge and Fan Charges :Rs. 13,459.00 5. Cost of Shortage of Library Books :Rs. 345.00 ________________ Total :Rs.1,45,769.94 _________________ Sri M.Surendar Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, while the respondent-TTD was entitled to recover the vehicle loan of Rs.41,007, the II A advance pending of Rs.1,500/- and the cost of shortage of library books of Rs.345/-, they were not entitled to recover Rs.89,458.74/- towards house rent, and electrical and fan charges of Rs.13,459.20/-. Learned counsel would contend that, since the commutation value of pension is required to be paid to the petitioner and cannot be adjusted, the respondent-TTD had acted illegally in doing so. Learned Counsel would further submit that the respondent-TTD had not even issued a notice to the petitioner, prior to his retirement from service, informing him of the amounts due; and they did not have authority to recover the said amounts after the petitioner had retired from service. This Court, while admitting the Writ Petition, did not grant any interim order. Later, WPMP.No.19104 of 2000, filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent-TTD to pay the amounts, sanctioned by proceedings dated 02.01.1999, was dismissed for default by order of this Court dated 15.07.2002. Sri M.Surendar Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, in the absence of any interim order, the respondent-TTD had already recovered the entire amount of Rs.1,45,769.94 ps. from the commutation value of pension payable to the petitioner, and had paid him only Rs.210/-. While a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent- TTD, the petitioner has not chosen to file a reply affidavit thereto and, as such, the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the TTD stand unrebutted. The respondent-TTD would state that the petitioner was sanctioned House Building Loan for construction of his own house; he occupied his own house on 06.02.1980; he did not vacate the residential accommodation provided to him by the respondent-TTD; it was found that the house rent recovered from April, 1982 onwards was less than the actual amount to be recovered; as per G.O.Ms.No.303 dated 20.11.1979, house rent should be recovered at 10% of the emoluments; as per G.O.Ms.No.583 ACCOM.D-1/85 dated 29.05.1986, employees who have taken house building advance for construction, or to purchase a readymade house, were not eligible for Government/TTD accommodation; and such employees, who were in occupation of quarters, should pay rent at 15% of the emoluments towards rent from 02.05.1984 to 30.09.1985, and at 20% of emoluments from 01.10.1985 onwards. It is further stated that the TTD Trust Board, in its resolution No.161 dated 31.05.1988, had resolved to collect standard rent from employees who had availed house building advance, and had constructed houses within 8 Kms. radius from the place of duty; 10% of salary in the case of employees who had availed house building loan and constructed houses beyond 8 Kms. from the place of duty; the petitioner, having taken house building advance and having constructed a house in Tirupati itself, had not vacated the TTD quarters; the standard rent fixed by the Engineering Department for ‘A’ type quarters at Tirumala was Rs.1,096/- P.M.; the TTD Trust Board, in its aforesaid resolution, had resolved to collect fixed rent for various types of quarters occupied by TTD employees who had not drawn house building advance; the rent of ‘A’ type quarter was fixed at Rs.125/- p.m.; the petitioner was not entitled to the said benefit of rent at Rs.125/- since he had drawn house building advance; subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.128 dated 19.05.1988 was issued for recovery of house rent at 15% of the emoluments in respect of employees who had taken house building advance; on a representation by the TTD staff and workers union, 15% of the emoluments was recovered from employees occupying TTD quarters despite having taken house building advance, and 5% of excess house rent recovered was refunded during 01.07.1986 to 31.05.1988; as per the above G.Os. and the TTD resolutions, the house rent due from the petitioner was calculated upto April, 1992; from May, 1992 till the date of his retirement at Rs.1000/- p.m., less than the standard rent of Rs.1,096/- p.m.; and after his retirement i.e. from May, 1998 till the date of vacation of TTD quarters i.e. 03.12.1998, the standard rent of Rs.1,096/- was applied, totalling to Rs.2,096/- (maximum H.R.A. allowed Rs.1,000 + standard rent Rs.1,096 = Rs.2,096/-). It is further stated that Rs.89,458.74 was found due by the petitioner towards house rent; he was the drawing officer at that point of time; he had recovered Rs.125/- from his salary towards house rent from February, 1991 to November, 1997 as against 15% of the emoluments or the standard rent; it was found that the petitioner was due Rs.89,458.74 ps towards house rent; and house rent dues were recovered from the commutation value of his pension. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that Rs.43,400/- was sanctioned to the petitioner towards vehicle loan on 10.11.1988; an amount of Rs.27,750/-, along with interest at 8%, was recovered from his salary towards vehicle loan; Rs.41,007/- was outstanding from him towards principal and interest on the vehicle loan; Rs.13,459.20 was recovered towards electrical and fan charges; by proceedings dated 13.05.1998, sanction was accorded to the petitioner for encashment of the 240 days of earn leave, available to his credit, after his retirement; he requested for payment of encashment of earned leave; and the aforementioned dues were recovered from the commutation value of pension payable to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner continued in the TTD quarters even after construction of his own house by taking house building advance from the respondent-TTD; he had failed to recover house rent as per the prevailing rules; he had failed to remit the electrical and fan charges; all the amounts were accumulated as dues recoverable from his pensionary benefits; and, accordingly, the amounts due from him were recovered from the commuted value of pension and the balance was paid to him. It is evident that the petitioner, who was the Drawing Officer during the relevant period, had failed to effect recoveries from his monthly salary and, as such, the respondent-TTD claims to have recovered the said amount from his pensionary benefits. As noted hereinabove, in the absence of a reply affidavit, this Court has perforce to accept the averments in the counter affidavit as true. With regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice had been given to the petitioner before effecting recoveries prior to his retirement, it must be noted that, accepting the contention of violation of principles of natural justice would necessitate the respondent-TTD refunding the amount recovered earlier from the petitioner, put him on notice and, thereafter, effect recovery of the said amounts due from him. Principles of natural justice is not an empty ritual or a needless formality, and it is only where a clear case of prejudice being caused is made out would this Court be justified in interfering with the action taken by the respondent-TTD on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Since the facts stated in the counter affidavit stand unrebutted; the amount recovered represents the dues payable by the petitioner to TTD; and, in as much as recoveries were effected nearly a decade ago, I see no reason to now interdict the action of the respondent-TTD on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:29.07.2010 usd