Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Manoj Kumar Singh vs Union Of India Through on 19 July, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench O.A. No. 3914/2012 Order reserved on: 16.07.2013 Order pronounced on: 19.07.2013 Honble Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A) Manoj Kumar Singh, S/o late Shri Vishnu Deo Singh, Flat No.UG-1, Plot NO.A1/24, DLF, Dilshad Ext.-II, Bhopura, Sahibabad (up).-2-1 005. -Applicant (Applicant in person) -Versue- 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, G Block, New Delhi-110 001. -Respondents (By Advocate Shri R.K. Jain) O R D E R Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A):
The applicant in this case, after filing the OA, has received all the arrears of HRA and Transport Allowance (TA) due to the upward revision of pay scale of Assistants from Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 15.09.2006. His grievance is that the respondents have not paid interest on the arrears for the deliberate delay caused by the respondents. Appearing in person, the applicant submitted that following the order of the Ministry of Finance dated 16.11.2009 granting the pay structure of Grade Pay of Rs.4600 in Pay Band 2 to Assistants and Personal Assistants, including the Armed Forces Headquarters Service, to which he belongs, he had become entitled to enhanced HRA and TA. However, the respondents failed to act upon it and sought clarification with regard to payment of HRA and TA on the revised pay structure on 23rd June, 2009 from the Department of Expenditure and while they paid these allowances to some of the employees as per the revised pay, it was denied to others on the ground that there was ambiguity in the Department of Expenditure UO dated 23.06.2009. The respondents are, therefore, liable for payment of interest on the arrears of these allowances from 13.01.2011 to 05.02.2013. The applicant also submitted that in case of LTC advance taken by him, the Department had charged penal interest on the amount for which he could not submit necessary documents.
2. Shri R.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there was no intentional delay on the part of the respondents. They had earlier decided to follow the Department of Expenditure UO dated 23.06.2009, giving the same interpretation as the applicant is submitting. A supplementary bill for Rs.62478/- on account of arrear of pay and allowances due under RPR, 2008 for the period 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2009 was claimed by the office of the JS (Trg.) & CAO, New Delhi for pre audit and release of payment. The bill was however, audited and passed for payment for Rs.46547/- after disallowing HRA & TPT component to the tune of Rs.15931/-.
3. The respondents received the clarification from the Department of Expenditure, as conveyed by JS (Trg.) and CAO New Delhi vide letter dated 17.12.2012 and accordingly the amount of arrear was drawn and paid. It was submitted that since the nodal Ministry in these matters is DoPT and clarifications are to be obtained from Department of Expenditure, the respondents in this case are not responsible for any delay arising on account of ambiguity in the instructions issued by Department of Expenditure. The learned counsel was emphatic in his submission that the respondents in this case had taken all steps required for timely payment of allowances as admissible under the Rules.
4. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the documents placed on record. It is observed that at this stage the applicant has already been released payment of HRA and TA at the revised rates for the period 15.09.2006 to 31.08.2008, as claimed by him. This was one of the reliefs sought by him in the OA. Now the issue of interest on amount of arrears paid for the period, allegedly caused due to the fault of the concerned officials, remains to be addressed. From the record submitted by the respondents it is seen that office of the Chief Administrative Officer had initiated a case to obtain clarification from the DoPT with regard to payment of HRA and TA on the upgraded pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 15.09.2006 in pursuance of Department of Expenditure UO dated 23.06.2009. Apparently, after clearing a few cases of payment of these allowances at the higher rates the authorities (PCDA HQ) did not clear subsequent proposals and even the earlier approved cases were reviewed for effecting recoveries. In view of the difference of opinion with regard to the interpretation of the aforesaid UO of Department of Expenditure the matter was referred to that Department. That Department confirmed vide UO dated 11.12.2012 the admissibility of the payment of HRA and TA on upgraded pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 for the period 15.09.2006 to 31.08.2008. It is, therefore, clear that there has not been any lack of action on the part of the respondents. The Finance and Audit authorities are the custodian of public funds and responsible for checking that its use is in accordance with the prescribed rules and procedure. Since there was a lack of clarity on the issue of payment of HRA and TA on the upgraded scale the audit authorities were within their rights to advise the concerned office to obtain clarification from the Department of Expenditure. It is also seen that having noticed some anomaly in the Department of Expenditure instructions the audit authorities also advised recovery of the amount from the already approved cases. Thus the though audit authorities had rejected their claims earlier, subsequently released arrears after getting clarification from the Department of Expenditure in respect of 427 personnel. It is also apparent that in the entire episode there does not appear any intention on the part of the respondents to harass anyone or deliberately deny the legitimate entitlement to the applicant. I, therefore, see no justification in agreeing to the demand made by the applicant for allowing interest on the amount of arrear for the delayed period. The OA is found devoid of merit, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(V.N. Gaur) Member (A) San.