1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner who was holding post of Associate Director of Research with Gujarat Agricultural University and retired on 31.1.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. Initially an amount of Rs.1,31,850/- was withheld from the gratuity vide order dated 18.2.2003 on account of payment made towards National Watershed Project to the petitioner as honorarium. However, later on after scrutiny to the actual work carried out by the petitioner, respondent authority released the honorarium of Rs.66,495/- for the work carried out by the petitioner in Bhachau area pursuant to the assignment given to the petitioner.
2. Before filing this writ petition, the petitioner has undertaken process of law challenging the action of respondent University in issuing show cause notice to the petitioner on 1/9-10/2004, by which, the amount of recovery was sought to be initiated and since petitioner had gone abroad a request was made to give him personal hearing before passing the order. However, explanation to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner on 16.10.2004. Finally by notification dated 10.12.2008, the respondent University decided to recover the amount of honorarium which came to be challenged by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 2310/2009 which came to be withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh petition with correct typed annexures and accordingly, the Special Civil Application No.3114/2009 was filed which came to be allowed by order dated 23.6.2009 and directed the respondent to pass the order after issuing notice and considering the reply of the petitioner.
3. However, since respondent University replied to the learned advocate for the petitioner by letter dated 18.2.2010 and no amount was ordered to be refunded a further challenge was made by filing Special Civil Application No.5868 of 2010 which came to be dismissed by the order dated 10.5.2010 by learned Single Judge which was carried out in Letters Patent Appeal No.1573 of 2010, in which, the University was directed by the Division Bench to examine all relevant aspects and communicate the order to the petitioner accordingly and the decision taken by the respondent University on 5.3.2011, by which, claim of the petitioner to refund the amount of honorarium came to be rejected and is a subject matter of this petition.
4. Mr.
Gunvant Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner would contend that the action of respondent University to recover the amount of honorarium as well as rejection of his claim as per the impugned order dated 5.3.2011 is unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and no amount could have been ordered to be recovered after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. It is further submitted that the decision of the University is not only illegal but it suffers from vice of non-application of mind inasmuch as the petitioner in the capacity of Assistant Director had taken all possible efforts and work was carried out by analysing the data received by the field officer and further he was entitled for incentive/ honorarium for carrying the field activities and expenditure incurred on additional stationary and some allowance for typing, printing of reports etc. in view of special assignment pertaining to "South Gujarat Heavy Rainfall Zone" as per the decision taken by Ministry of Agricultural, Department of Agricultural and Cooperation, Govt. of Gujarat. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that interpretation of inquiry committee appointed by the petitioner has not taken into consideration the coordination work carried out by the petitioner and Director of Research and In-charge officer of the project had recommended the work performed by the petitioner and Vice Chancellor approved and thereafter the order was issued for payment of honorarium and, therefore, withholding of any amount from retiral dues would be contrary to law and action of the respondent impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, Mr. D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate for the respondent-University would submit that as per research proposal under NWDPRA, submitted by Gujarat Agricultural University with regard to carryout research in "South Gujarat Heavy Rainfall Zone" certain objectives were approved and the petitioner was to undertake the activities as per the guidelines contained in the communication dated 27.4.1994 addressed by Govt. of India Ministry of Agricultural to the Secretary (Agricultural) Govt. of Gujarat and according to learned advocate for the respondent University certain incentive and honorarium were to be given to officers who are actually involved and carried out the research pertaining to the subject as above.
5.1. In fact when the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, the respondent University had no clear material before sanctioning the amount of honorarium and upon appointing the committee it was scrutinized that officers/employees of the University viz: accounting and administrative staff and research assistants and higher officers including the then Vice Chancellor, who were sanctioned honorarium by misinterpreting the guidelines under the Watershed Project. The petitioner was called upon by affording opportunity of hearing and issuance of show cause notice could not satisfy the University about actual performance of duties in the field and therefore, the order of recovery of honorarium which was unauthorizedly and illegal paid to the petitioner cannot be said to be unreasonable, arbitrary, warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that a Committee consisting of two members of Board of Management to ascertain and find out illegality committed in payment of honorarium etc and report submitted by the Committee would establish the amount of honorarium received by the petitioner was contrary to the guidelines and for the work actually not performed by the petitioner and thus, the order impugned do not require any interference by this Court and it is submitted that the petition be rejected with cost.
6. Upon perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner came to be superannuated on 31.1.2003 while holding the post of Associate Director of Research. It is further not in dispute that initially an amount of Rs.1,31,850/- was withheld from the gratuity amount by order dated 18.3.2003 but subsequently about Rs.63,555/- was paid by the University upon verifying the relevant facts about actual performance of duties by the petitioner with regard to Bhachau area for the research carried out. However, so far as special project assignment as per communication dated 27.4.1994 by Ministry of Agricultural, Department of Agricultural and Cooperation, Govt.of India and guidelines contained therein with regard to research proposal submitted by Gujarat Agricultural University "South Gujarat Heavy Rainfall Zone" the following objectives/topics were approved.
to reduce soil loss and erosion through biological means and regulate run off losses for its better utilization and to improve in-situ moisture storage is the soil profile to increase crop productivity.
To reduce temporary water logging and improve drainage system.
To demonstrate economic viability of mixed farming including agro-forestry.
So in all there are 3 research topics which were approved and hence a sum of Rs.1.80 lakhs for 3 years is approved @ of Rs.20,000 for topic per annum.
Amount sanctioned is for research operational cost and may be bifurcated and utilized for items mentioned below by the University.
field activities pertaining to research experiments cost and installation of gauging and other instruments/devices in selected portion of watersheds POL and other institutional expenditure on mobility TA/DA to the scientists/ technicians visiting the fields incentives/honoraria for coordinating the field activities stipend for short term consignment to the investigators.
Expenditure on additional stationary and some allowanced and honoraria for preparation, typing, printing or reports.
7. A conjoint reading of the first and the second part of the above communication and guidelines contained three research topics and lumsump amount was approved and honorarium and incentive were to be paid to the employees/staff for carrying out research activities. In this regard it is to be noted that said honorarium/incentive though cannot be claimed by employees/officers of the University as a matter of right but since amount was allocated by Govt. of India for carrying out research activity it was to be paid depending on actual work performed by the employee or research assistant or any officer connected therewith. Besides, field activities pertaining to research experiments and incentives and honorarium were to be paid for carrying out field activities by actual cost incurred for installation of instruments/device in selected portion of watershed and petitioner in the capacity of Assistant Director could not have remained in the office simply to coordinate and analyze the data pertaining to research. In fact the purpose of the research was to find out the nature and quality of soil loss and erosion through biological means and so as to see better utilization which could be used for increase of crop productivity and to study problems pertaining to water logging and improve drainage system which may be useful for the department to prepare and study economic viability of mixed farming including agro forestry. Admittedly the petitioner has never visited any of the field and actual site to see that whether sample of soil taken by research and field assistant and data collected by such persons was in a proper manner or the sample of soil was taken from the area concerned. The petitioner being Assistant Director was duty bound to visit the site so as to have actual knowledge and experiments of the soil in question, for which, research activities under NWDPRA was carried out in various agro climatic zone. In spite of show cause notice and opportunity given by the specially appointed committee and the University later on nowhere it is submitted by the petitioner that he had actually performed the duties at the filed or at the site where the sample of soil was to be taken and data to be collected and study and thus, on the contrary he remained negligent in performance of duty. In the above backdrop of circumstances, decision of the University impugned in this petition rejecting the claim of honorarium for such research activities by the petitioner cannot be said to be unreasonable arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary the recovery sought to be ordered and no refund is given to the petitioner by the University appears to be just and proper in absence of no interest is charged to the petitioner for keeping such amount illegally with him since the petitioner had unjustly enriched himself by claiming the honorarium for which he was not entitled.
8. In view of the above, petition is rejected with cost of Rs.1000/-. Notice discharged.
[ANANT S. DAVE, J.] //smita// Top