Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Prabhawati vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 18 February, 2025
(RESERVED ON 24.01.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Dated This the 18TH day of February, 2025
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 646 OF 2021
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII, MEMBER (J).
1. Prabhawati W/o Late K.D. Maurya, R/o Matri Chhaya Maurya
Niwas, Near City Railway Station, Umarpur, Haribandpur, Jaunpur.
2. Dev Datta Maurya, S/o Late K.D. Maurya, R/o Matri Chhaya
Maurya Niwas, Near City Railway Station, Umarpur, Haribandpur,
Jaunpur
......... Applicants
By Advocate: Sri Deepak Maurya
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication
(Telecom), Department of Tele Communication, Sanchar Bhawan, 20
Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
2. Chairman & Managing Director, BSNL Corporate Office, Bharat
Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Chand Mathura Lane, New Delhi.
3. Divisional Engineer (Headquarter), Office of Principal General
Manager, Core Network (Tx North), BSNL, Ground Floor, Telephone
Exchange Compound, Kesar Bagh, Lucknow.
4. General Manager, Core Network (Tx North), BSNL Microwave
Station, Compound1-A Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur.
5. Divisional Engineer (OFC) Core Network (Tx North), BSNL,
Varanasi Office of General Manager, Microwave Station, Compound1-A
Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur.
6. Assistant General Manager (Establishment)-1 Corporate Office,
Pension Section, 5th floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Mathur Lane, New
Delhi.
7. Assistant General Manager (HRD), Office of CGM, CN (Tx-
North), BSNL-2nd floor, Qidwai Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi.
............ Respondents
By Advocate : Sri D.S. Shukla
ORDER
The applicants have filed the instant Original Application seeking the following relief(s):-
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 2 "(a) to quash the impugned orders dated 5.2.2018 passed by respondent no.6 as well as the order dated 29.4.2021 passed by the respondent no.7 by means of which the claim of the applicants relating to payment of interest of Ex-gratia amount as well as the interest on pension/family pension has been rejected in an arbitrary and illegal manner against the provisions contained under the Central Government Pension Rules.
(b) to direct the respondent authorities to sanction the payment of penal interest @ 18% per annum on delayed payment of ex-gratia amount lump sum compensation and difference of amount of ordinary family pension, Extra Ordinary family pension to the applicants which were paid in the year 2017 instead of in the year 2009 by the respondent authorities.
(c) to issue an order or direction may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(d) to award the costs to the applicants."
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the husband of applicant no.1 and father of applicant no.2 namely Late K.D. Maurya, who was working with the respondents as Sub Divisional Engineer (OFC), Jaunpur under respondent no.6 died on 9.5.2009 in a road accident. On the sad demise of husband of applicant no.1, she was sanctioned family pension under Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules. According to the applicant, certain guidelines have been provided in EOP Rules of 1939 for providing extra-ordinary pension and the same was considered by the DoPT while issuing the O.M. dated 3.2.2000. Pursuant to the aforementioned O.M., the applicant preferred an application on 23.3.2010 with a prayer for ex-gratia payment. On this, the matter was remitted back to the authority concerned vide letter dated 9.2.2011 with a direction to examine the issue.
2.1 Ultimately, after the long battle, the ex-gratia payment was made to the applicant vide order dated 29.3.2017 and the arrears thereof were credited in the account of applicant no.1 on 3.7.2017. The applicants claimed that since they have been paid family pension after a period of one year and that the amount relating to ex-gratia has been made to them after a period of more than nine years and as such they are entitled to get the amount of interest on the delayed payment of family pension for one year and on ex-gratia amount, which has been paid to them after a period of nine years. Being aggrieved, the applicants preferred series of MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 3 representations and ultimately the claim of the applicants has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 5.2.2018, which has been reiterated in the order dated 29.4.2021 in reference to letter dated 22.2.2021 as submitted by the applicant no.1. Hence, this O.A.
3. On notice, the respondents have contested the claim of the applicants by filing a detailed Counter Affidavit wherein they have stated that K.D. Maurya, the then SDE (OFC), Jaunpur died in a road accident on 9.5.2009 and consequently the family pension under Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 was paid to the applicant no.1 w.e.f. 10.5.2009 by issuing PPO in her favour on 11.1.2010.
3.1 The respondents have also considered the claim of the applicants for grant of extra ordinary pension and the same was granted to applicant no.1 vide PPO issued by the office of CCA, Delhi on 16.5.2017 and thereafter the arrears of family pension w.e.f. 10.5.2009 based on the revised family pension under CCS (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules, 1972 after deducting the payment already made under Family pension under Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 has been made. The applicant was in receipt of family pension w.e.f. 10.5.2009 onwards. The applicant no.1 was also allowed family pension under CCS (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 after following the due process. The respondents have also averred that the request of the applicant no.1 for grant of ex-gratia lump sum compensation was also considered by the competent authority and she was finally granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs on 9.1.2017. The respondents have clarified that ex-gratia compensation is allowed as a special benefit to the family of an employee who dies in harness. The respondents have also stated that the benefit of ex-gratia compensation cannot be granted in a routine manner and each case for grant of ex-gratia needs critically examined. Further, the benefit of ex- gratia is admissible under CCS (EOP) Rules, 1939 and as such it requires approval of DoT being the pension authorizing organization and as such the sanction of ex-gratia was a time consuming process. The applicant no.1 was paid ex-gratia compensation after following the due process and finally she has been paid ex-gratia compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs on 9.1.2017. The respondents have also pleaded that there is no provision in the rules/instructions for grant of interest on ex-gratia lump sum compensation payment to the beneficiary of an employee. The MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 4 payment of ex-gratia compensation is mainly granted with a view to provide relief to family of the employee who die while performing official duties. In absence of any rule/ instructions/enabling provision for grant of interest on ex-gratia, there is no merit in the claim of the applicant. Lastly, they have concluded that the O.A. being bereft of merit and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. In rebuttal, the applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents denying the contentions made in the Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments made in the Original Application.
5. Supplementary Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondents to the Rejoinder Affidavit filed by the applicants. To this, the applicants have also filed Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit to the Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance the following case laws in support of their claim:-
(i) S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana & Another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44.
(ii) Smt. Satya Bhama Tripathi Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 769 of 2018 on 17th November, 2022.
(iii) Ram Babu Gupta Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 847 of 2016 on 9th November, 2022.
(iv) Smt. Thimmakka Vs. Union of India and others decided on 17.10.2019 in OA No. 310/00165/2019 by Principal Bench of the Tribunal;
(v) Smt. Chander Kali Vs. Union of India and others decided on 31.05.2023 in OA No. 1515/2019 by Principal Bench of the Tribunal;
(vi) Smt. Shakuntla Vs. Union of India and others decided on 10.11.2022 in OA No. 3384 of 2017 by Principal Bench of this Tribunal;
(vii) Sangeeta Devi Vs. Union of India and others decided on 08.11.2023 in OA No. 330/00232 of 2021 by CAT, Allahabad Bench;
(viii) Smt. Krishna Devi Vs. Union of India and others decided on 05.10.2023 in OA No. 523 of 2018 by CAT, Allahabad Bench;
(ix) Shankuntala Devi and another Vs. Union of India and others decided on 25.04.2024 in OA No. 330/00766/2021 by CAT, Allahabad Bench;
(x) Poonam Vs. Union of India and others decided on 25.04.2023 in CWP -9022-2017 (O&M0 by Hon'ble High Court Punjab and Haryana;
(xi) Union of India and others Vs. Premwati decided on 31.10.2022 in WP (C) 10087/2019 & CM APPL.41716/2019 by Hon'ble High Court, New Delhi MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 5
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
8. Admittedly, the husband of the applicant, who was working as SDE (OFC), Jaunpur died in a road accident on 9.5.2009. Thereafter, the applicant no.1 was granted family pension as well as extra ordinary pension after completion of necessary formalities. It is also not in dispute that the applicant no.1 has been paid ex-gratia compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs on 9.1.2017. It is necessary to point out here that ex-gratia compensation is being allowed as a special benefit to the family of an employee who dies in harness and it is not being granted to all employees in a routine manner. Since the benefits of ex-gratia is admissible under CCS (EOP) Rules, 1939 as such it requires approval of DoT with the result, some delay has occurred in releasing the same. Admittedly if the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant in regard to payment of interest on delayed payment of ex-gratia is taken into consideration certainly interest on ex-gratia compensation is permissible and Tribunals and Hon'ble High Courts time and again has allowed the same.
9. In the case of Union of India Vs. M.S. Abdulla reported in 2006 Law Suit (SC ) 350, it has been held as under:-
"The Tribunal's view which was accepted by the High Court, was that payment of interest should be calculated with effect from three months after the fifth Pay Commission Report. Our attention had been drawn to a circular dated 6.5.1991 which lays down that normally with regard to payment of retiral benefits, payment of interest is to be made in case there is delay of more than six months. In our opinion, the same principle should also be applied in case of payment of interest on retiral benefits by reason of voluntary retirement on the basis of fifth Pay Commission Report."
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A Sulekha Vs. N.A. Das reported in 2006 Law Suit (SC) 1320, has held as under:
"In our opinion, since both the courts have concurrently held that the liability certificate ought not to have been issued, there was no reason for any delay in the payment of the appellant's retiral benefits. We are also not convinced that the appellant could have MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 6 withdrawn the amount of retiral benefits without giving up her challenge to the deduction on account of an alleged liability towards the missing books. We are of the view that the appellant had just cause to claim interest from the respondent college. Where it not for the illegality committed by the respondent college, the issues of delay and payment of interest would never have arisen. In the circumstances, we direct the respondent college to pay interest to the appellant for a period of three years commencing from 30.9.1998 to 30.9.2001 or until the appellant was in fact paid her retiral benefits, whichever is earlier together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The interest of the amount to be paid within a period of 12 weeks from the date. In default, the rate of interest will be 12% per annum."
11. Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13343 of 2003 in re. S.S. Tandon Vs. State of U.P. & Others decided on 18.10.2006 has held as under:-
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the government order dated 15th July, 1997, we are of the view that the amount of interest at the rate of 11% per annum for the delayed payment on all the post retiral dues will meet the ends of justice, therefore, we hold and direct that the petitioner shall be paid interest at the rate of 11% per annum, which was prevale3nt rate of interest in the Bank at the relevant time as informed by Sri G.P. Agarwal. The interest shall be paid on delayed payment of the amount of gratuity and pension and on commuted value of pension. The amount shall be paid to the petitioner within maximum period of four weeks from the date of a receipt of a certified copy of this order."
12. In the instant matter, some delay has occurred in payment of arrears of family pension as well as ex-gratia compensation. As has been discussed hereinabove, applicant is entitled for interest on delayed payment firstly on arrears of family pension as well as on ex-gratia compensation.
14. In view of the settled position of law and facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the OA is allowed. Respondents are hereby directed to pay interest to the applicant on the delayed payment of arrears of ex-gratia compensation and interest on the delayed payment of arrears of family pension in the following manner:-
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 7
(i) The interest on delayed payment of family pension is to be calculated from the date of death of employee (09.05.2009) till the date of actual payment (01.01.2010) @ 6% simple interest per annum.
(ii) So far as interest on delayed payment of ex-gratia compensation is concerned, the reasonable period would have taken in processing the application for grant of ex-gratia compensation, thus, applicant will only be entitled for payment of interest on delayed payment of ex-gratia compensation w.e..f 01.01.2011 till the actual payment i.e. 29.03.2017 @ simple interest of 6% per annum.
(iii) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. All the associated M.As also stand disposed of.
(Justice Om Prakash -VII) Member (J) Manish/-
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA