Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
(By Advocate: Shri Manjeet Singh Reen) vs Union Of India: Through on 15 March, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No.2514 of 2009
New Delhi this the 15th day of March, 2010
Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J)
Shri Ram Avtar Singh Gothwal,
S/o Late Shri Mool Chand,
working as (Retd.) Chief Booking Supervisor,
Under Station Superintendent,
Northern Railway,
Delhi Cantt. Delhi.
(By Advocate: Shri Manjeet Singh Reen)
... Applicant
Versus
Union of India: through
The General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Chand Kiran)
ORDER
The applicant has filed this application seeking interest at the rate of 18% simple interest on the delayed payment of retrial dues. These retrial dues are mentioned in Para 4.12 of the application and are as follows:
ITEM AMOUNT PAID ON DELAY IN PAYMENT CGGIS 28,522 18.5.2009 10 months Leave Encashment 1,84,386/- 18.5.2009 10 months Commutation 4,21,684/- 24.5.2009 10 months DCRG 3,85,497/- 24.5.2009 10 months SRPF 1,66,430/- 10.7.2009 3 months
2. The respondents did not file reply. By way of indulgence, they were given two weeks further time on 16.2.2010 to file reply subject to payment of cost Rs.500/-. The respondents have not filed their reply with the costs.
3. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant referred to Circular of the respondent viz. R.B.E.No.169/2008 dated 6.11.2008 on the subject of payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity which reads as follows:
Instructions were issued vide Boards letter No.F9E)III/94/PNI/28 dated 01.11.1994 (Bahris 93/1994. p-178) inter alia providing that where the payment of DCRG has been delayed beyond 3 months from the date of retirement, interest at the rate applicable to SRPF deposits (then 12 per cent per annum, compounded annually) will be paid to retired/dependents of deceased Railway servant. Subsequently, instructions were issued in supersession of earlier instructions dated 01.11.1994, vide Boards letter of even number dated 27.06.2002 (Bahris 90/02.p-102) wherein the provision for payment of interest on delayed payment of DCRG was simply reiterated the without mentioning therein the words compounded annually.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the applicant did not press the interest @18% and stated that he would be satisfied if the interest applicable to SRPF is paid. He further admitted that the first three months of delayed payment may not attract payment of interest since the time required for processing the dues in the cases i.e. on superannuation. He has referred to the cases of Vijay L.Mehrotra Vs. State of UP & Ors. (JT 2000(5) SC 171) ; Rajender Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others (2008(4)462) and Dhanwant Rai & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2006(1) All India SLJ 564), the copies of which are annexed at page 23-29 of the paper book. He also placed on record a copy of this Tribunals order dated 7.01.2010 in OA-1418/2009. On the strength of these cases, it has been contended by the applicant that the payment of interest for delayed payment of retrial dues is not to be confined to the gratuity only but is to be extended to other retrial dues as well.
5. Having given my careful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as upon perusal of the records of the case, I find force in the applicants contention. The question of payment of interest on delayed payment of retrial dues is no longer res integra. There are two conditions required to be satisfied before interest on delayed payment of retrial dues can be awarded, viz. the delay is attributable due to administrative lapse and the delay was not caused on account of failure on the part of the government servant for processing the retrial dues.
6. In the instant case, Respondent No.2 issued the letter dated 31.7.2008, conveying acceptance of the technical resignation of the applicant and issued orders to release his retrial dues. Under RTI Act, the applicant was informed that retrial dues would be released within three months. Despite representation made by the applicant, the retrial dues have indeed not been released within three months of the acceptance of his technical resignation. Thus, payments of these retrial dues beyond three months attract payment of interest by the respondents own admission as well as under the relevant rules. Of course, this would be further subject to the rider that delay was not caused on account of failure on the part of the applicant for timely processing of his dues. No such delay has been brought on record by the respondents.
7. In the facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, I allow this application with the direction to the respondents to make payment of interest at the SRPF rate, applicable at the time of delayed payment of retrial dues to the applicant for the period commencing three months after the date of acceptance of his technical resignation until the date the amount of retrial dues were actually paid to the applicant. For the sake of clarity, no interest shall be payable for the first three months. With these directions, the OA is allowed. No order as to costs.
(Dharam Paul Sharma) Member (J) /usha/