Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Rajesh Bhargava vs The Govt. Of Nct Delhi on 19 May, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.3265/2010 New Delhi, this the 19th day of May, 2011 HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER(A) Shri Rajesh Bhargava, S/o Late Shri K.P. Bhaargava, R/o WZ-436, Shri Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Jai Bansal) Versus 1. The Govt. of NCT Delhi, Through the Chief Secretary, Secretariat of Delhi Govt. I.P. Extension, New Delhi-110002. 2. The Director, Directorate of Technical & Training Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Muni Maya Ram Marg, Pitampura, Delhi. 3. The Principal, DDO, Pusa Polytechnic, Pusa Campus, New Delhi. . Respondents. (By Advocate : Mrs. Renu George) : O R D E R :
The Applicant is a retired Junior Lecturer of Pusa Polytechnic who is claiming interest at 18% per annum on his retirement dues, and has come before this Tribunal for the 2nd time. Earlier, on the same issue, he came in the OA No.1789 of 2010 which was decided at the admission stage on 31.5.2010 in following terms :-
4. In the present case, the Applicant has retired on 31.08.2009 and has received the entire retirement benefits on 22.12.2009. The period that the Respondents have taken works out to three months twenty two days. This, in my considered opinion, is not a delay for which interest would be admissible. The case of S. N. Sharma (supra) relied upon by the Counsel for Applicant is not applicable in the present case as in the said case the delay was for a considerable period and, therefore, the orders passed therein is to direct the payment of admissible interest to the Applicant in that OA. That case is well distinguishable and would not be applicable in the present case.
5. In view of the above, the Original Application, having no merits, is dismissed in limine.
2. Being aggrieved by the above order, he submitted WP(C) No.5534/2010 before Honble High Court of Delhi and sought leave to withdraw the said Writ Petition with a request to re-approach the Tribunal on the same issue. The Honble High Court has ordered on 16.8.2010 that if the Applicant re-approaches the Tribunal, the same would be decided, as per law. Consequently, the Applicant is before the Tribunal in the present OA claiming that interest @ 18% on retirement dues is payable to him for (a) 3 months and 22 days delay in making the payment of (i) Commuted Pension, (ii) Leave encashment and (iii) Gratuity; and (b) 6 months delay in making payment of his reduced monthly pension.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondents to which the reply affidavit was filed on 23.10.2010. As the Applicant did not submit his rejoinder inspite of the time granted to the Applicant on 24.2.2011 and 19.4.2011, the case was finally heard on 9.5.2011. Shri Jai Bansal learned counsel represented the Applicant and Smt. Renu George learned counsel for the Respondents argued in the final hearing.
4. It is contended by Shri Bansal that the Applicant retired on 31.8.2009 and all formalities were completed by the Applicant in the month of July, 2009. The retirement benefits were paid on 22.12.2009 and monthly pension was paid to him after nine months and he was not granted any provisional pension from the date of his retirement. It was further submitted that his pay and allowances were revised 1 = year before his retirement and 6th CPC pay scales were not applicable to him. Therefore, revision of pay scale, it is argued, cannot be a ground for delayed release of retiral dues. Relying on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of H. Gangahanume Gowda Versus Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. [AIR-2003-SC 1526], he submitted that the Applicant was entitled to interest on the gratuity admissible right from the date it became payable to till the date of actual payment.. Shri Bansal also placed his reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Kerala and Others Versus M. Padmanabham Nair [AIR 1985 SC 356], Ex Captain R.S. Dhull Versus State of Haryana and Others [AIR 1998 SC 2090] and Dr. Uma Agrawal Versus State of UP and Another [1999-3-MLJ-29 SC] to highlight that interest is admissible for culpable delay in the settlement of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits.
5. Per contra, Smt. Renu George vehemently opposed the claim of interest on retiral dues as she contended that the Applicant was partly responsible for the delay. Applicant submitted the required documents only in July, 2009 whereas he was to submit at least 6 months before his retirement. Further there was no vigilance clearance as a vigilance case was pending, and as soon as the vigilance clearance was received, the pension papers were sent to the PAO to release payments. Her contention is that time taken to process his pension papers is the processing time admissible under the Rules. It was, therefore, pleaded to dismiss the OA.
6. Having heard the Counsel for the rival parties, issue for my determination is in narrow field i.e. whether interest is admissible for the delayed payment of (a) Commuted Pension; (b) reduced monthly pension; (c) gratuity and (d) leave encashment?
7. Admittedly, the Applicant retired on 31.08.2009, and no disciplinary and criminal case was pending against him. Two months before his retirement, the Principal of Pusa Polytechnic sent a letter dated 29.06.2009 stating that no vigilance case at the Institute was pending. The Directorate of Training and Technical Education submitted belatedly the vigilance clearance which was found to be the main ground for delayed payment of dues to the Applicant.
8. In this backdrop, let me examine each of the claims of the Applicant.
(a) Interest on Commuted Pension.
31.08.2009- Applicant retired.
29.12.2009- `621237 Commuted Value of Pension was paid.
Delay of 3 months 29 days is reported to have been committed by the Respondents. Applicant is not responsible for the same. Hence, simple interest is admissible at the rate of 9% per annum for the above amount for a period of 2 months granting 59 days of normal processing.
Interest on reduced monthly pension.
31.08.2009- Applicant retired.
30.09.2009- Reduced monthly Pension was due.
01.04.2010- `9417 reduced monthly pension was paid for a period of 7 months.
Excluding 2 months for processing the period of 5 months delay will attract simple interest of 9% per annum.
(c) Interest on gratuity.
31.08.2009- Applicant retired.
29.12.2009- `660964 of gratuity was paid to the Applicant.
As per the Gratuity Act, the Gratuity is to be paid to the retired employee on the date of retirement. Interest is admissible to be paid for the belated period of gratuity payment. Hence, at the simple interest of 9%, the Applicant would be entitled to the interest on the above amount for the period upto 29.12.2009.
(d) Interest on leave encashment.
As per the DOP&T Note date 2.08.1999, no interest is admissible on leave encashment. Accepting the said instructions, I find the Applicant is not entitled to interest on the leave encashment amount paid belatedly.
9. In terms of my finding in Para 8 above, I direct the Respondents to pay interest to the Applicant on the admissible claims within a period of 9 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. To the above extent, the Original Application is allowed. No costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) Member (A) /rk/