Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. Rakshpal Singh, Deputy ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Its ... on 10 September, 2007
ORDER N.D. Dayal, Member (A)
1. In this case the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
(a) to quash & set aside the impugned order referred in Para-1 of OA and to direct the respondents to pay interest @ 18% p.a. for the period of 6 months on delayed payment of Commutation of pension to the Applicant with all consequential benefits and also to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the interest of commutation of pension wef Jan.2002 till the payment of such amount.
(b) To award cost in favour of the Applicant and against the respondents.
(c) To pass any further order, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The applicant was initially appointed as Chemical Assistant in 1965 and over the years, he became Deputy Superintending Archeological Chemist, the post from which he superannuated on 30.06.2001. It is submitted that the applicant was paid his retiral dues on 01.01.2002 after a delay of six months. The applicant states that the settled law is that if there is a delay in disbursing retiral benefits, the respondents would be liable to pay interest thereon. When the applicant's representations were rejected, he filed OA No.216.2005 which was decided on 29.07.2005. The Tribunal having taken note of Rule 68 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 held that the applicant was entitled to interest on delayed payment of all retiral dues at the rate of 9 % per annum for the period from 01.10.2001 to 30.12.2001 after deducting the grace period of three months from the date of retirement. The respondents were therefore directed to pay the interest accordingly.
3. When the respondents paid interest they excluded interest on commutation of pension and the Contempt Petition filed by the applicant was dropped with liberty to resort to appropriate legal proceedings. MA was also filed under Rule 24 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 seeking payment of interest on delayed payment of commutation of pension but the same was dismissed as not maintainable and hence the applicant is before the Tribunal in the present case. It is argued that as per Department of P&P.W. OM dated 30.05.1986 if an application for commutation of pension is received on or before the date of retirement, the commutation of pension shall become absolute on the date following the retirement. The applicant had exercised his option for commutation of 1/3rd of pension under Rule 13(3) of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 timely. But according to him he was paid the commuted pension of Rs.5,66,677/- on 01.01.2002 only. It is stated that such delay has caused the applicant harassment and the respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong of delayed payment of commutation of pension by six months. The applicant has relied upon a judgement of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of R.P.Kapoor v. Union of India reported in 1996 (2) ATJ 3 to contend that the Tribunal had granted interest on delayed payment of retirement benefits including commuted pension. The liability of the Department to pay pension should also be appreciated in terms of the Rules which require the concerned office to take up the matter well in advance so that payments are not delayed. The applicant it is stated had supplied pension papers two months prior to retirement on 02.05.2001 and the delay is not on his part.
4. In their reply the respondents have opposed the claim of the applicant stating that he had received all his arrears and retirement benefits as per Rules and nothing was further due to him. He is getting the pension regularly since retirement. It is explained that a sum of Rs.281587/- by way of commutation value of pension was granted in December, 2001 vide PPO received with letter dated 10.12.2001 of the PAO. As such the amount was not Rs.5,66,677/- as claimed by the applicant. It is further stated that the applicant was paid full basic pension of Rs.5980/- from 01.07.2001 to 30.11.2001 and a reduced rate of Rs.3588/- per month from December, 2001 onwards. However, since he actually got the commuted value of pension only in January, 2002 for the month of December, 2001, he was further paid a sum of Rs.2392/- being the difference between his pension of Rs.5980/- and the actual amount paid which was Rs.3588/-. This payment was made to him on 18.08.2006. Therefore, the applicant was given full pension and also interest later on upto December, 2001 and received the commuted value of pension in January, 2002. Therefore, no claim for the interest would lie. The applicant further confirmed that interest on all other retiral benefits such as DCRG, leave encashment, arrears of average pension for three months from October, 2001 to December, 2001 was paid to the applicant in accordance with the orders of the Tribunal. It is further submitted that judgement in the case of R.P.Kapoor (supra) is not applicable as the applicant in that case must have been paid reduced amount of Pension from the date of his retirement, i.e., 01.07.1994 and hence interest on commuted value. It is reiterated that in the present case, full basic pension has been paid plus interest on arrears of average pension till he received the commuted value which was not granted in the case of R.P.Kapoor.
5. The respondents have further stated that if the commutation is to be treated as due on 01.07.2001, the applicant would be liable to pay back 40% of basic pension, i.e., Rs2392/- per month from July to December, 2001 (six months) Rs.14352/- plus interest on arrears of average pension Rs.780.39 which along with commutation value comes to a total more than what would be due to him on account of interest on commutation of pension.
6. In his rejoinder, the applicant has once again expressed his grievance and reiterated his stand already taken while denying the averments of the respondents in their counter reply.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for both sides and perused the pleadings. It is seen that the applicant had come before the Tribunal in OA 216/2005 with the grievance that he was provided all the retiral benefits belatedly and sought direction to pay him interest on delayed retiral benefits at the rate of 18% per annum for the period 01.07.2001 to 31.12.2001 and also prayed to issue a direction to the respondents for payment of interest at the rate of 18% for the period from January, 2002 till the disposal of the OA. The OA was decided on 29.07.2005 holding that the applicant is entitled to interest on delayed payment of all retiral benefits at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for the period from 01.10.2001 till 31.12.2001. Thus, the applicant has already received an order with regard to the payment of interest on delayed payment of all retiral benefits. He has however filed the present OA specifically praying for the payment of interest at the rate of 18% for the period of six months on delayed payment of commutation of pension and also interest on the interest from January 2002. Evidently there was no specific mention regarding the interest on commutation of pension in the order of the Tribunal.
8. It is further seen that in the case of R.P.Kapoor (supra), the disciplinary proceedings had been pending against the applicant which culminated in his exoneration. It was therefore found with reference to the rules that the commutation of pension became due immediately after retirement. The applicant therein had prayed for fixation of his pension and release of various dues such as DCRG, commuted value of pension, leave encashment along with interest on the delayed payment. The applicant was in receipt of provisional pension. The Tribunal noted that the rules provide for commutation of provisional pension also. It was directed that regular pension payable to the applicant be fixed and he be paid DCRG and also permitted commuted value of pension. Interest at the rate of 12% was granted on delayed payment of DCRG and Leave Encashment. It was further directed that the respondents shall pay interest after considering the payment of commutation value of pension and in case the same is ordered to be paid, the interest shall be paid at the rate of 12% per annum compounded yearly with effect from 01.10.1994 upto the actual payment of the commutation value, allowing a period of three months as reasonable for deciding such case in case the applicant had already applied for payment of commutation value of his pension or applies within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. It is therefore not clear as to what action has been taken on the applicant's request for commutation value of his pension if such request was made and whether it was commuted and if so whether interest was actually paid. By a plain reading of the operative part of the Tribunal's order it cannot be said that interest was ordered to be paid on delayed payment of pension as well as the delayed payment of the commuted value of pension. As such the applicant's reliance on this order does not appear to advance his case.
9. Another order passed by this Tribunal in OA 2107/2002 decided on 07.05.2003 has been relied on and it is stated that taking the cue from the decision of the Apex Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and Ors. , the Tribunal having found that delay in payment of commuted value of pension was not attributable to the applicant, ordered payment of interest thereon. This order, however, does not reveal whether pension had already been paid before that and whether any interest had been granted thereon. A perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, also produced by the applicant, further shows that pension does not find place in the details of retiral benefits mentioned therein, which is confined to GPF/GIS, Encashment of Leave, Arrears of pay, Gratuity, Commuted Pension and Detained amount. In the present case it is seen that 40% of the pension was commuted. Therefore, when the applicant has received the payment of full pension for the period until commuted value of pension was paid and also interest due to delayed payment thereon, it is not made clear as to on what basis interest can again be claimed for the second time.
10. In view of the above, I do not find sufficient grounds to accede to the prayer of the applicant. The OA is therefore dismissed. No costs.