Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri T P Venugopalan vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 19 January, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.2429/2010 Wednesday, this the 19th day of January 2011 Honble Dr. K.B. Suresh, Member (J) Shri T P Venugopalan Senior Accounts Officer (Retd) Group B, aged 70 years s/o late Shri M Naryana Menon resident of 204, MS Block North West, Moti Bagh, New Delhi-21 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri E J Verghese) Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Defence New Delhi-11 2. The Secretary Ministry of Defence (Finance) New Delhi-11 3. The CGDA West Block V, R K Puram New Delhi-66 ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Rajender Nischal) O R D E R (ORAL)
Heard both the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The applicant seeks the follow up action following the order passed by the Tribunal in OA 1354/2002 dated 21.8.2001, order in OA 110/2005 and a judgment of the High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No.12759-61 of 2006 dated 6.11.2007. The short question, which comes for consideration, is whether following the revocation of suspension dated 30.3.1998, his retirement on 30.4.1998 and following the intervention of this Tribunal in CP 307/2008 in OA 110/2005 wherein directions were given to accord to the applicant the full pension with @ 9% interest and the order passed by the competent authority on 23.1.2009 whereby the period of suspension has been regularized as period of duty, the learned counsel for respondents submits that in compliance of the above orders all the arrears of pay and allowances for the period under suspension have been paid to the applicant. However, they would say that vide Annexure A-1 there was no mention of any interest on arrears of pay and allowances during the period of suspension in the order of the Tribunal dated 10.4.2006 in OA 110/2005. Vide Annexure A-2, the respondents would say that the Ministry had also looked into the claim and it has not been accepted. The applicant would point out that in fact he had been granted liberty by the Tribunal to initiate proper proceedings for interest towards his suspension period. The difference in pay and allowances during the suspension period following the regularization of duty is a right of the applicant and it has been paid to him. The question, which remains, is whether for the period under suspension, the interest is to be payable?
3. The salary and allowances of an employee would remain his property on the date on which it is due to be paid to him. Since it is the property of a person and it is appropriated for whatever reason, the moment it is found that it has been wrongly appropriated, he becomes liable to be paid the interest on the amount, which has been wrongly withheld by the respondents. Therefore, it is clear that the respondents are obliged to pay the interest @ 9% for the period in which the amount was kept with the respondents wrongly. Since this ought to have been done earlier itself and in view of the fact that the applicant, who is of 70 years age, has been running from pillar to post, OA is allowed with a cost of `2000/- imposed upon the respondents to be paid to the applicant. It is directed that the now amount in question shall be calculated by the respondents and paid over to the applicant within a period of two months next from the receipt of a copy of this order. If it is further delayed, it shall be paid with an interest @ 24% cost at Rs.2000/- to be paid to the applicant.
( Dr. K.B. Suresh ) Member (Judicial) /sunil/