Varsity held guilty of ‘unlawfully’

A Division Bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Rajiv Narain Raina has also upheld an order passed by a single Bench,where the Court had slapped a penalty of Rs 10,000 on the University for “illegally” withholding the provident fund dues of Dr Iqbal Singh Dhillon,retired director and head of Youth Welfare Department.

The division bench has dismissed an appeal filed by the University against an order passed by a Single Bench where the Bench had directed the University to release the provident fund amount standing to the credit of Dhillon with simple interest at 18 per cent per annum.

Dhillon had served the University for nearly 27 years from 1987 to 2005. During his tenure,it was not disputed,the petitioner drew advances from grants and subsidies put at the disposal of the petitioner for onward disbursement to affiliated colleges to bear expenses of youth festivals.

There were audit objections with respect to 33 advances and 25 subsidies that remained unadjusted and unaccounted in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner was served with several notices to reconcile the accounts and finalise the same by accounting for the advances made to him. It was his case that from time to time he had furnished proof of fund utilisation,accounts adjustment and had submitted expenditure reports.

When the petitioner retired on reaching the age of superannuation on April 30,2005,the amount lying in his PF account was withheld with a view to make deductions to satisfy the claims reflected in the audit objections.

The petitioner’s request for payment of provident fund dues was rejected by the University. The amount was denied through a letter dated September 8,2008 on the premise that till such time that the petitioner did not comply with audit requirements.

“The University apart from emerging in a long drawn out correspondence with the petitioner did nothing for over two decades to either reconcile the accounts or to take recourse to adjudicatory procedure for recovery of its alleged dues” read the judgment.

The order further read,“The Single Judge after a detailed examination of the matter has to our mind rightly come to the conclusion that non release of provident fund dues on alleged adjustments against liability which have not been determined by any adjudicatory process is untenable. It is well settled that amounts lying in a provident fund is the hard earned money of an employee which normally cannot be touched with a bargepole”.