Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Surendra Mohan Pd vs Home Affairs on 1 October, 2019
1 OA 622 of 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
OA/050/00622 of 2018
Order reserved on 30.09.2019
Date of order
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JAYESH V. BHAIRAVIA, MEMBER (J)
Surendra Mohan Prasad, S/O Sri Jhalak Perasad, Ex-UDC, Office
of the Director of Census Operations, Bihar Patna-800004. R/o
village- Sarari (West Tola), Post-Khagaul, District- Patna, PIN
CODE-801105 (Bihar).
......... Applicant.
By advocate: Sri M.P. Dixit.
Verses
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home
Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Registrar General of India & Census Commissioner, 2/A.
Mansingh Road, New Delhi-110011.
3.The Director Of Census Operations, Bihar State Co-operative
Bank Building, 2nd Floor, Ashok Raj Path, Patna-800004 (Bihar.)
4. The Deputy Registrar General, Directorate Of Census
nd
Operations, Bihar State Co-operative Bank Building, 2 Floor,
Ashok Raj Path, Patna-800004 (Bihar.)
5. The Pay & Accounts Officer (Census), Office of the Pay and
Accounts Officer, AGCW Building, Indrapastha Estate, New Delhi-
110002.
6. The Under Secretary, Office of the Registrar General of India,
2/A. Mansingh Road, New Delhi-110011. ........ Respondents.
By advocate: Sri Bindhyachal Rai.
ORDER
Per Jayesh V. Bhairavia /M (J):- In the instant OA, the applicant has sought direction upon the respondents to release/pay the interest @ of 18% upon the DCRG amount of Rs.849915/-, Commuted Value of Pension, amount of Rs.513383/-, arrears of pension of Rs.56448/- and arrears of suspension amount of Rs.348817/- all paid on 21.12.2017 when the applicant superannuated from service on 30.09.2016.
2 OA 622 of 2018
2. Learned counsel for the applicant mainly submitted as under:-
(i) The applicant was superannuated from service on 30.09.2016 while serving as Upper Division Clerk at Patna with the respondents department.
(ii) The applicant while in service placed under suspension vide order dated 14.05.2015 which he had challenged through OA 367/2015 with the additional prayer for treating the entire period of suspension till its revocation as on duty for all purposes and the payment of salary. Subsequently, during the pendency of said OA, applicant superannuated on 30.09.2016 and considering the fact that the applicant has been reinstated and OA was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take decision regarding how the suspension period would be treated expeditiously, preferably before the applicant's date of superannuation and shall settle the applicant's retiral dues as per law. (Annexure-A/1).
(iii) After the aforesaid order, the applicant has submitted his representation claiming his retiral dues including salary for the suspension period.
(iv) It is submitted that respondents have delayed the legitimate payment of the applicant and only on 02.12.2017 released/paid DCRG amount of Rs.849915/-, Commuted Value of Pension, amount of Rs.513383/-, arrears of pension of Rs.56448/- and arrears of 3 OA 622 of 2018 suspension amount of Rs.348817/-. However, the said amount has been paid without any interest. It is submitted by the applicant that payment was delayed by the respondents for any reason which can be attributable to the applicant and, therefore, for such delayed payment, the applicant is entitled for interest of delayed payment.
(v) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned action of the respondents is bad in law, arbitrary and also contrary to the various judicial pronouncements. In this regard, the applicant has placed reliance on judgements passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and also the order passed by Hon'ble Madra High Court in the case of B. Thirumoorthy Vs. The Secretary to Government, dated 22.03.2017 and submitted that the applicant is entitled for interest on delayed payment of DCRG.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement and denied the claim of the applicant. The respondents have mainly contended as under:-
(i) The applicant was detained in judicial custody from 15.07.2013 and released on bail on 16.08.2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patna. Under the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, he was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 15.07.2013 which was extended from time to time. In compliance to the interim
4 OA 622 of 2018 order dated 25.05.2015, passed by this Tribunal in OA 367/2015, applicant was reinstated in service w.e.f. 25.05.2015 vide order dated 03.07.2015 (Annexure-R/1). Subsequently, this Tribunal in its final order dated 18.11.2016 directed the respondents "to take decision regarding how the suspension period would be treated expeditiously, preferably before the applicant's date of superannuation. It is also expected that the respondents shall settle the applicant's retiral dues expeditiously as per law."
(ii) On receipt of the aforesaid order, the respondents have immediately taken action. Since, the applicant had already retired from service on 30.09.2016, his provisional pension had already been released as per law vide letter dated 14.10.2016. (Annexure-R/2).
(iii) It is contended by the respondents that it is important to ascertain that the detention of the applicant was justified or erroneous for the treatment of suspension period. It was become important to the respondents to ascertain the status of the charge sheet with regard to criminal case pending against the applicant. Therefore, the Directorate of Census Operations, Bihar had sent letters dated 11.04.2017, 03.07.2017 and 04.12.2017 to police authorities and also followed up verbally. In response to it, police authority vide its letter dated 11.12.2017 (Annexure-R/4) had finally informed that the applicant had surrendered before the court on 19.08.2013 5 OA 622 of 2018 and is on bail since then. Others named in the FIR were also similarly on bail and charge sheet is likely to be filed soon. Therefore, applicant was found clear from vigilance angle only by a whisker. If charge sheet would have changed status of vigilance clearance and he would not have been eligible for full retirement dues or regularization of suspension period. On receipt of vigilance clearance, the respondents had paid all the benefits of the applicants on 21.12.2017 without any delay.
(iv) It is further contended that with regard to claim for grant of MACP, the case of the applicant was placed before the Screening Committee and he has been found fit by the committee for grant of 3rd MACP due on 28.07.2015 and accordingly orders for grant of MACP has been issued vide letter dated 14.12.2017 (Annexure- R/5). The DCRG etc. have been released vide office letter dated 14.12.2017 (Annexure-R/6). The aforesaid amount has been credited in the applicant's bank account. (Annexure-R/7).
(v) Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that respondents have taken all the steps and the order passed by this Tribunal on 18.11.2016 has been complied with in its true spirit. It is further submitted that because of administrative reason which was beyond the control of the respondents, the payment was made on 6 OA 622 of 2018 21.12.2017. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the applicant are not applicable in the present case.
4. Heard the parties and perused the materials placed on record. In the instant OA, it is not in dispute that the applicant was detained in judicial custody from 15.07.2013 and he was released on bail on 16.08.2013 the applicant being a government employee, he was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 15.07.2013 by the respondents under provision of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant had preferred OA 367/2015 and in compliance to the interim order dated 25.05.2015, the applicant was reinstated in service w.e.f. 25.05.2015 vide order dated 03.07.2015 by the respondents. Subsequently, the said OA was disposed of vide order dated 18.11.2016 with direction to the respondents to take decision regarding how the suspension period would be treated expeditiously, preferably before the applicant's date of superannuation and settle applicant's retiral dues expeditiously as per law. It is noticed that before this Tribunal passed the order on 18.11.2016, the respondents had already issued the order for grant of provisional pension to the applicant on 14.10.2016 under Rules 69 of CCS Pension Rules (Annexure- R/2) since the applicant was already retired on 30.09.2016.
5. It is further noticed that since there was criminal case lodged against the applicant the respondents vide their letter dated 11.04.2017 as also followed by reminders requested the police authority about the status of criminal case lodged against the applicant as also sought vigilance clearance. The respondent 7 OA 622 of 2018 shave received the vigilance clearance on 06.12.2017. The respondents had received approval for grant of financial upgradation under MACP for the applicant vide order dated 14.12.2017. It is further noticed that the respondents have regularized the suspension period vide order dated 14.12.2017 and also fixed his pension accordingly vide order dated 14.12.2017.
6. It is noticed that vide order 20.12.2017, the respondents had released/paid the DCRG amount of Rs.849915/-, Commuted Value of Pension, amount of Rs.513383/-, arrears of pension of Rs.56448/- and arrears of suspension amount of Rs.348817/- and same was credited in the account of the applicant. (Annexure-R/7).
7. The main grievance of the applicant in the present OA with regard to delayed payment of retiral dues and therefore, claimed interest on such delayed payment. In this regard, it is submitted by the applicant that after disposal of OA 367/2015, dated 10.11.2016, the respondents had failed to settle his retiral dues including the decision of regularization of suspension period within reasonable time and paid the said payment after one year from the date of order passed by this Tribunal and, therefore, he has claimed interest for such delayed payment. In this regard, it is noticed that the applicant was involved in criminal case, though it was a private dispute, it was became necessary for the respondents to inquire about the status of said criminal case as also required the vigilance clearance for settlement of retiral dues. It is also seen that after 8 OA 622 of 2018 order passed by this Tribunal, the respondents have called for details of the status of the criminal case immediately followed by reminders and subsequently received the vigilance clearance vide letter date 06.12.2017.
8. It is also noticed that the case of the applicant was placed before the Screening Committee for grant of financial upgradation under MACP and on receipt of approval from the said Screening Committee, the pay of the applicant was fixed in accordance with the policy of MACP on 14.12.2017 and thereafter the case paper of the applicant was forwarded for fixation of the pension etc. and on receipt of the same the respondents have paid all the dues along with arrears vide order dated 20.12.2017. It is also noticed that no charge sheet was filed against the applicant, therefore, there was no occasion for talking any cognizance of any offence against the applicant. Under the circumstances, prima facie, I am of the considered view that there was no judicial proceeding was pending against the applicant on the date of his superannuation. The respondents have admitted that there was administrative lapse for releasing the reitiral dues and arrears. The legitimate right of the applicant to receive DCRG was curtailed by the respondents for their own fault. Under the circumstances, as also in light of the judgements relied upon by the applicant, in my considered view, the claim of the applicant to receive interest for the delayed payment of his retiral dues is justifiable and the said delay cannot be attributable to the applicant. Accordingly the respondents are hereby directed to consider and pass a speaking 9 OA 622 of 2018 order with regard to the claim of the applicant for payment of interest on delayed payment of his retired dues in light of aforesaid discussions within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, OA is disposed of.
[ Jayesh V. Bhairavia ]M(J) BP/