A.K. Sikri, J.

1. This case has a chequered history. The petitioner retired from the post of Director General (Income Tax) in February, 1986 and is still litigating for release of his terminal dues. The first application was filed by the petitioner for this purpose before the Central Administrative Tribunal way back in June, 1987. Certain payments were made to him. The petitioner had also to approach the Supreme Court earlier and by order dated 29th September, 1994 the Supreme Court directed grant of interest at the rate of

CWP NO: 2143/2001:

18 per cent per annum on the dues belatedly.

2. It may be mentioned that there was some dispute about the non-vacation of the staff accommodation allotted to the petitioner and the respondents wanted recovery of penal rent from the petitioner for over-staying in the premises. The Supreme Court in its order dated 29th September, 1994 accordingly permitted the respondents to recover damages under Fundamental Rule 45-A while granting payment of interest to the petitioner on terminal dues. The respondents accordingly made the payment of the terminal dues with interest but made a deduction of Rs.51,644/- on account of unauthorised occupation of premises No.215, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi for the period from 1st July, 1986 to 25th October, 1988 as well as a sum of Rs.12,413/- thereby adjusting a total sum of Rs.64,507/-. Challenging this deduction, the petitioner filed OA No.1119/96 which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 15th February, 2000. The petitioner filed Review Application seeking review of judgment dated 15th February, 2000 which was also rejected vide order dated 28th November, 2000. The petitioner has now approached this court by way of present writ petition impugning the aforesaid two orders passed in OA as well as on review application.

3. So far as recovery of Rs.12,413/- is concerned, the petitioner does not dispute the liability but submits that even if that is payable, there is already over payment and Therefore, no recovery could have been made by the respondents. In this respect, he submits that the respondents have calculated this amount without any basis and have tried to charge the so-called penal rent at higher rate than the respondents were entitled to. In support of his plea, he relied upon order dated 25th July, 1984 passed by the Additional District Judge in his appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971(for short `The PP Act) as well as order dated 9th August, 1984 passed by this court in CWP No. 665/84. His submission was that as per these orders, the respondents could charge only at the rate of Rs.176/- per month.

4. It appears that the respondents had earlier initiated proceedings under the provisions of the PP Act and the Estate Officer passed an order dated 30th August, 1991 assessing the damages of Rs.51,644/- for the unauthorised occupation of the premises i.e. 215, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi for the period from 1st July, 1986 to 25th October, 1988. This was taken in appeal by the petitioner and by order dated 9th February, 1993 the Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and set aside the aforesaid order. The respondents were permitted to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner. However, it was not done. According to the respondents, some writ petition was filed against this order. The respondents, however, could not state as to what happened in the writ petition. The petitioner, on the other hand, categorically stated that he did not receive notice of any such writ petition. In the writ petition No.665/84 filed by the petitioner, this court had passed the order to the effect that even for other period the respondents shall be entitled to charge the rent at the rate of Rs.176/- per month. Therefore, in the absence of any fresh proceedings and in view of the aforesaid orders of Additional District Judge as well as this court passed earlier, for the purpose of recovery amount of Rs.176/- per month is only to be taken into consideration for the period in dispute. No doubt, the Supreme Court had permitted the respondents to recover the amount of damages while making the payment, that would entitle the respondents to only recover the legally sustainable damages. Taking shelter of order dated 29th September, 1994 of the Supreme Court the respondents cannot be allowed to recover the sum of Rs.51,644/- in respect of which order dated 30th August, 1991 passed by the Estate Officer had already been quashed. The amount has to be legally determined by the Estate Officer which has not been done after the judgment dated 9th February, 1993 rendered by the Additional District Judge, Delhi.

5. During the course of arguments, the petitioner had furnished the details of the calculations of the rent if charged at the rate of Rs.176/- per month. On the basis of these calculations he submitted that the amount chargeable was only Rs.7,744/- for 44 months i.e. from 1st January, 1976 to 31st August, 1979 whereas the damages charged by the respondents for this period were Rs.24,703/- and in this way the respondents charged excess amount of Rs.16,959/- (44 months). Likewise, according to the petitioner, for the period from 23rd July, 1983 to 5th April, 1984 the damages payable were Rs.3,369/- (i.e. for 19 months) against which the respondents charged an amount of Rs.8,887/- thereby charging an excess amount of Rs.5,518/-. In this manner the respondents had charged a total amount of Rs.22,477/- in excess and after giving certain adjustments the petitioner works out the excess amount to Rs.18,212/-. Thus, according to him, even if the amount of Rs.12,413/- as now claimed by the Directorate of Estate is charged, the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs.5,799/-.

6. Therefore, once the petitioner is entitled to refund there was no question of making any adjustment while paying him the terminal dues and thus such an adjustment was wrongly made.

7. These calculations of the petitioner could not be disputed by the respondents. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the respondents wrongly deducted the amount of Rs.64,507/- while paying the interest due on gratuity to the petitioner pursuant to the orders of the Honble Supreme Court. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order of the learned Tribunal is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to the aforesaid amount. However, the prayer of the petitioner to pay interest on this amount is rejected in view of the fact that the amount which was paid to the petitioner, from which aforesaid deduction was made, itself represented interest and no interest on interest would be admissible. However, the direction is issued to the respondents to pay the aforesaid amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

8. Before parting, we may record that the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents should be allowed to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under the PP Act for recovery of the penal license fee at higher rate which is payable by the petitioner as per the Rules. Needless to mention if such a course of action is legally available to the respondents, the respondents shall be entitled to initiate the same.

9. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and as the petitioner appeared in person, there shall be no order as to costs.