Judgment:
1. The original applicant Mohd. Saleem filed this O.A for the following reliefs: i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned rejection order dated 16.12.2003 passed by Respondent No. 3 and impugned order/direction dated 16.10.2003 given by Chief post Master, KPHO regarding to arrange payment of DCRG after adjusting the cooperative society dues amounting worth Rs. 51,896/- from the sanctioned amount of DCRG Rs. 52,896/- payable to the applicant; ii. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect the impugned rejection order dated 16.12.2003 passed by the Respondent No. 3 and impugned order/direction dated 16.10.2003 given by Chief Post Master, KPHO, Kanpur/Respondent No. 4 to APM, A/cs, KPHO regarding to arrange payment of DCRG after adjusting the Cooperative Society dues amounting worth Rs. 51,896/- from the sanctioned amount of DCRG Rs. 52,896/- payable to the applicant; iii. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to pay full sanctioned amount of DCRG Rs. 52,896/- to the applicant with reasonable interest admissible in law; iv. To issue a suitable writ, order or direction to the respondents to sanction provisional Family Pension to the applicant/claimant father of the deceased son Late Mohd. Shamim, Group 'D', Kanpur HPO.2. Late Mohd. Shamim was admittedly a group 'D' employee under the respondents. There appears no dispute tht while in service, he took certain loan from Postal Co-operative Society but before he repay the same, he expired on 22.11.2003 leaving behind him his parents. Under the relevant rules, his parents were to get Death-cum-retirement Gratuity (DCRG). The original applicant came to know, that the authorities were trying to deduct unpaid amount from the amount payable under the head of DCRG, on the ground that the deceased owed that amount to Postal Co-operative Society. It is said, under the relevant rules, such an amount payable to a Co-operative Society, does not fall within definition of 'government dues', hence cannot be deducted from the amount payable as DCRG. He made representation, as mentioned in para 9, to authorities for paying the full amount of gratuity and for not deducting any amount due to the Co-operative Society. When this amount was not paid, he filed O.A No. 128/2003, which this Tribunal disposed of vide judgment and order dated 05.09.2003, directing the Post Master General, Kanpur to decide the representation dated 26.06.2003 by a reasoned and speaking order. It appears the Post Master General, Kanpur rejected the said representation vide order dated 16.12.2003 (Annexure- 5 to the O.A). It is stated that against this rejection, the applicant represented to respondent No. 2 by submitting representation dated 01.01.2004 followed by other representation.
Grievance with regard to non-payment of family pension has also been raised in the O.A 3. On death of Mohmmad Salim, his wife Smt. Mano Khanam has been substituted in his place. The respondents have filed their reply contesting the claim. They say that in view of the consent (Annexure- 1 to the reply), of Late Mohd. Shamim, for recovering the Co-operative dues from the amount payable to him as gratuity, in case of his death and in terms of Govt. of India decision below Rule 73 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the action of the respondents in recovering that amount from DCRG is perfectly justified. As regards the family pension, it is being said by them that since Smt. Mano Khanam is getting family pension on death of her husband, (who was also in service), so she is not entitled for second family pension on the basis of her being mother of Late Mohd. Shamim.
4. I have heard parties counsel and perused the entire material on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has confined his arguments to the question as to whether Co-operative dues in question, could be recovered from the amount of gratuity that became payable to the applicant on death of Late Mohd. Shamim. Reliance is being placed on Govt. of India's decision noted under rule 73 of Pension Rules, that arrears of water and electricity etc. are not the 'government dues' and so the same cannot be recovered from gratuity payable to the dependents of the deceased servant. The learned counsel has also referred to R.Kapoor v. Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication), Income Tax and Anr. reported in 1995(1) UPLBEC page 89, where it has been held that the pension and gratuity are not bounty and the retired government servant has valuable right to get the same. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that the consent being referred to and relied on by the respondents in reply, cannot be acted upon for want of it acceptance by the competent authority. He says that the alleged consent cannot be made basis to recover the co-operative dues from the gratuity payable to the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that Late Mohd.
Shamim gave his consent in writing to the effect that in case of death or quitting the service, the amount due to the co-operative society , could be recovered from the gratuity payable to his heirs. As regards the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant against the consent , learned counsel for the respondents contended that the consent given by the employee cannot be said to a waste paper nor can be challenged in this way.
7. I have considered the respective submissions. There can be no dispute that only 'government dues' can be recovered from the amount of DCRG. There can be no further dispute that amount due to the co-operative society does not fall within the definition of government dues. But the question is as to whether any such dues, not falling within the definition of 'government dues', can be recovered from the gratuity payable to the person concerned on the basis of consent or with his consent. I am of the view that if a person, to whom certain amount is payable, himself consents or has already given his consent for recovering such dues the same could be recovered from the amount of gratuity payable to him and no legal objection can be had to the recovery on the basis of such consent. It is not disputed that Late Shamim did owe the said amount, to the said co-operative society. After all, if he had to pay or his heirs had to pay the dues to the co-operative society, why the same could not be deducted on the basis of his consent. I think that no law comes in to picture, if one gives consent for deduction of recovery of particular amount from the amount of gratuity payable to him. So the O.A for directing the respondents not to recover the amount in question from the amount of gratuity payable to applicants must fail. However, I direct the authorities to pay the rest of the amount of gratuity without further delay.
8. With the aforesaid direction, the O.A is disposed of but with no order as to costs.