Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Saroj Bala Gupta vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 29 May, 2024
1
OA No.129/24
Item No.100 (C-4)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.129/2024
This the 29th day of May, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Saroj Bala Gupta
D/o Late Sh. Rameshwar Das
R/o H. No. C-588, Second Floor
Gali No.7, Majlis Park
Delhi-110033.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Gupta)
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through the Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
4th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Centre
ND-110002.
2. Assistant Director of Education
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
16, Rajpur Road
Delhi-110052.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Neha Bairagee)
O R D E R (ORAL)
The applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) Direct the respondents to release the pending retirement benefits of the applicant that is Commuted Value of Pension amounting to Rs.16,24,379/- and Gratuity amounting to Rs.
18,26,286/- (as per the PPO issued by the respondents) and other dues that is 7h Pay Commission arrears, MACP arrears, DA & HRA arrears amounting to Rs.3,22,196/- as per details 2 OA No.129/24 Item No.100 (C-4) in ANNEXURE A-8 along with interest at the rate of 18 percent thereon from the date these became due to the date of actual payment as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of UP., AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3513(2) = 2000 AIR SCW 2678, in Civil Appeal No.687 of 2000, decided on 31.1.2000.
b) Direct the respondents to revise the gratuity amount to accommodate the enhancement in rates of DA from 34% to 38% from July 1,2022 as per the rules and disburse the same with interest @18 percent from due date to the actual date of payment.
c) Direct the respondents to pay back the amount illegally deducted from pension (against commutation of pension) with interest @24% per annum as the commuted value of pension was never paid and direct the respondents to stop making further deductions till the commuted value of pension is actually paid.
d) To award the cost of litigation as the respondents have forced the applicant to approach the court despite issuance of PPO.
e) Direct the respondent to pay at least another Rs, 10 lakh as an exemplary cost for harassing and depriving the applicant of his rightful dues and infringing his fundamental right of peaceful life.
f) Pass such order or further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in interest of natural justice."
2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the applicant states that this Tribunal has already dealt with the issue involved herein in OA No.2146/2023 decided on 17.05.2023. For the sake of clarity, the said order is reproduced verbatim:-
"Since the facts and reliefs sought in all the OAs are identical, all the OAs are being disposed of by way of this common Order. However, OA No. 2147/2023 will be taken as the lead case for the disposal of all the captioned OAs.3 OA No.129/24
Item No.100 (C-4) By way of the present OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
"i. Pass an order in favour of the applicant thereby declare the act of the respondent of not payment of the Gratuity amount Rs. 20,00,000/-, commutation of pension 19,02,242/-, 7 CPC arrears from 01.01.2016 th to 30.09.2016, D.A. arrears w.e.f. Jan. 2016 to March 2016, Jan. 2017 to March 2017, July 17 to Sept. 17, Jan. 18 to March 18, July 2018 to Sept. 2018, Jan. 2019 to march 2019, July 2019 to Sept 2019, besides above D.A. Arrear applicable on pension, due to the applicant in terms of the OM dated 20.11.2021 have not been paid so far despite representations dated 25.05.2021, 09.05.2023, 31.05.2023, 04.06.2023 followed by a legal notice dated 13.06.2023, nor paid the interest on the GPF and 50% commutation amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- after two and half year, are illegal, invalid, arbitrary, unjustified and violative of Art, 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, CPC Pension rules 1965 and violative of the service rules of the Respondent;
ii. Direct the respondents to pay the above retiral benefits i.e. Gratuity amount Rs. 20,00,000/-, commutation of pension 19,02,242/- 7th CPC arrears from 01.01.2016 to 30.09.2016, D.A. arrears w.e.f. Jan. 2016 to March 2016, Jan. 2017 to March 2017, July 17 to Sept. 17, Jan. 18 to March 18, July 2018 to Sept. 2018, Jan. 2019 to March 2019, July 2019 to Sept 2019, besides above D.A. Arrear applicable on pension, due to the applicant in terms of the OM dated 20.11.2021 along with interest and further the interest on delayed paid GPF and (Rs 19,00,000/-) 50% commutation of pension amount within a stipulated shortest period along with interest @Market rate of interest since due date and till date of realization.
iii. Direct the respondent to give the detail with statement of account of the amount paid to the applicant with details of calculation of interest on each amount.4 OA No.129/24
Item No.100 (C-4) iv. Any other order or direction as may in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper in favour of the Applicant and against the respondents;
v. Allow the present application of the Applicant with costs;"
2. Learned counsels for the applicants submit that the applicants have rendered almost 32 years of service under the respondents. The amount of GPF had been paid after about 7 months of retirement, without giving any interest (bill of amount was passed on the date of retirement, but paid after more than 7 months without interest) and without any fault of the applicant.
3. Learned counsels for the applicants rely upon the OM No. 3(6)/2021-P&PW(H)-70083 dated 09.03.2021 for release of timely payment of pension and other benefits to its employees.
4. The learned counsels in support of their claim rely upon the following decisions:-
(i) Dr. Uma Aggarwal Vs. State of UP & Another decided on 22.03.1999, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"The petitioner was working as Medical Officer in the service of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and retired on 30.4.1993 on completion of 58 years. She filed this writ petition on 18.11.1995 complaining that she has not been paid her retiral benefits, namely, gratuity, provident fund, pension etc. This Court admitted the writ petition on 4.12.1995 and issued notice to the respondents. The respondents submitted to this Court that, after her retirement, in spite of the petitioner being requested to send three sets of pension papers, petitioner did not send them. This was, however, denied by the petitioner. This Court directed the respondents on 12.2.1996 that upon petitioner furnishing three sets of pension papers with all relevant documents, the same should be processed. The respondents then sent a special messenger to various places to get details of her service and thereafter the pension papers were sent on 24.12.1996 to the Director General, Medical Health, U.P. It was 5 OA No.129/24 Item No.100 (C-4) stated that provisional pension was paid in December, 1996 and February, 1997. Arrears were paid on 17.3.1997. Papers were sent on 29.1.1997 to the Pension Directorate, Lucknow. In regard to the GIS it was pointed out that the petitioner had not paid premium of Rs.4770/- and thereafter, the petitioner deposited the same on 9.12.1997. The GIS was sent to petitioner on 17.12.1997, 90% of GPF was paid on 20.1.1998, and balance was paid on 25.4.1998. The Gratuity was paid on 25.6.1997 and the encashment of earned leave was also paid on the same date. The petitioner demanded interest while the respondents contended that no interest was payable. Though some other questions relating to promotion etc. were referred to in the writ petition, learned senior counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is confining this writ petition only in regard to the pensionary benefits. Now the only question that remains to be decided is the question relating to payment of interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested us that some guidelines may be issued regarding the steps to be taken by departments for prompt payment of retiral benefits.
Now-a-days, several writ petitions are being filed in this Court and various High Courts seeking relief for disbursement of retiral benefits, because of inordinate delays in payment of these benefits. As Krishna Iyer, J. stated in State of Mysore vs. C.R.Sheshadri & Others [1974 (4) SCC 308], `a retired government official is sensitive to delay in drawing monetary benefits. And to avoid posthumous satisfaction of the pecuniary expectation of the superannuated public servant - not unusual in government', it is becoming necessary to issue directions, in several cases, for early payment of these dues. In yet another case in State of Kerala & Others vs. M.Padmanabhan Nair [1985 (1) SCC 429], this Court had occasion to point out that usually `the delay occurs by reason of non- production of the L.P.C (last pay certificate) and the N.L.C.(no liability certificate) from the 6 OA No.129/24 Item No.100 (C-4) concerned departments' but both the documents pertain to matters, records whereof would be with the concerned government departments. It was observed that inasmuch as the date of retirement of every government servant was very much known in advance, it was difficult to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of the above said two documents should not be completed well before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount could be made on the date of retirement or on the following day and the pension, at the expiry of the following month. This Court stated that the necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a government servant immediately after his retirement could not be over-emphasized and it would not be unreasonable to direct that there would be a liability to pay penal interest on these retirement benefits. In several cases, decided by this Court, interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been directed to be paid by the State.
As these delays have increased in the last few years, it has become necessary to refer to the Rules and Departmental instructions which do contain adequate provisions for compilation of all the necessary data and preparation of the necessary documents for disbursement of retiral benefits, well in advance. The present case arises from Uttar Pradesh and we find that the Government of Uttar Pradesh has issued instructions to the effect that "the Head Office, or other authority responsible for preparing the pension papers should initiate the pension case, two years before retirement of the Government servant. At that stage, the essential information necessary for working out the qualifying service should be collected, and the entire service book and other service records should be examined and completed with a view to remove deficiencies and imperfections, if any, in the service book/records. This process should be completed" atleast eight months in advance of the date of retirement of the Government servant. The actual computation and 7 OA No.129/24 Item No.100 (C-4) preparation of the pension papers should then start and "any deficiency or imperfection, or omission which still remains in the service records should be ignored, and the determination of qualifying service should be proceeded with on the basis of entries in the service records, whatever the degree of imperfection to which it might have been possible to bring them by that time". "The process of determining the qualifying service and the average emoluments and the admissible pension and gratuity should be positively completed within a period of 2 months and the pension papers sent to the Accountant-General not later than 6 months before the date of retirement. The said office is to issue the pension payment order (including the order for the payment of the Death-cum- retirement gratuity) one month in advance of the date of retirement". "It should be ensured that the payment of superannuation pension commences on the first of the month following the month in which the government servant retires". This appears to be the clear position in Uttar Pradesh.
We may in this connection also refer to F.R.58 which relates to "preparation of pension papers". It states that "every Head of Office shall undertake the work of preparation of pension papers in Form 7 two years before the date on which the Government servant is due to retire on superannuation or on the date on which he proceeds on leave preparatory to retirement whichever is earlier". F.R.59 deals with the `stages for the completion of pension papers'. Sub-clause (1) (a) bears the heading, the first stage, and refers to the verification of service details. There are five parts in this sub- clause. Sub-clause (1)(b) refers to the second stage, namely, making good the omissions in the service book. Sub-clause 1(b)(ii) is important and it states very clearly as follows:
"Every effort shall be made to complete the verification of service, as in clause (a) and to make good omissions, imperfections or deficiencies referred to sub-clause (i) of this 8 OA No.129/24 Item No.100 (C-4) clause. Any omission, imperfections or deficiencies including the portion of service shown as unverified in the service book which it has not been possible to verify in accordance with the procedure laid down in clause (a) shall be ignored and service qualifying for pension shall be determined on the basis of the entries in the book."
This directive in the rules is obviously intended to see that once the period is quite close to 10 months before the retirement of an employee, further time is not to be wasted in verifying data which it has not been possible to verify by following the procedure in sub-clause (1)(a) of F.R.59. Sub-clause (1)(c) refers to the third stage and it says that atleast 10 months before the date of retirement, the Head office shall take various steps by issuing a Certificate to the government servant and the officer can offer his remarks and thereafter, he shall be furnished Form 4 and Form 5 which he has to fill-up and send to the Head Office atleast 8 months before the date of retirement. F.R.60 refers to `completion of pension papers' in Part-I of Form 7 atleast 6 months before the date of retirement of the government servant. F.R.61 deals with the `Forwarding of Pension Papers to Accounts Officer', in Form 5 and Form 7 with a covering letter in Form 8 along with service book duly completed, upto date, and other documents. This has to be done at least 6 months before the date of retirement. Rule 63 refers to recovery of amounts due by the government servant and the particulars in this behalf are to be sent atleast 2 months before the date of retirement, so that the same could be recovered from the gratuity. F.R.64 deals with provisional pension. F.R.65 requires the Accounts Officer to assess the amount of pension and gratuity atleast one month before the date of retirement. F.R.68 requires interest to be paid on delayed payment of gratuity. As already stated, in cases of delayed payment of pension, this Court has levied interest at 12% per annum in several cases.
9 OA No.129/24Item No.100 (C-4) We have referred in sufficient detail to the Rules and instructions which prescribe the time- schedule for the various steps to be taken in regard to the payment of pension and other retiral benefits. This we have done to remind the various governmental departments of their duties in initiating various steps atleast two years in advance of the date of retirement. If the rules/instructions are followed strictly much of the litigation can be avoided and retired government servants will not feel harassed because after all, grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the government servant. Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the Court can certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the rules/instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case.
The case before us is a clear example of department delay which is not excusable. The petitioner retired on 30.4.1993 and it was only after 12.2.1996 when an interim order was passed in this writ petition that the respondents woke up and started work by sending a special messenger to various places where the petitioner had worked. Such an exercise should have started atleast in 1991, two years before retirement. The amounts due to the petitioner were computed and the payments were made only during 1997-98. The petitioner was a cancer patient and was indeed put to great hardship. Even assuming that some letters were sent to the petitioner after her retirement on 30.3.1993 seeking information from her, an allegation which is denied by the petitioner, that cannot be an excuse for the lethargy of the department inasmuch as the rules and instructions require these actions to be taken long before retirement. The exercise 10 OA No.129/24 Item No.100 (C-4) which was to completed long before retirement was in fact started long after the petitioner's retirement.
Therefore, this is a fit case for awarding interest to the petitioner. We do not think that for the purpose of the computation of interest, the matter should go back. Instead, on the facts of this case, we quantify the interest payable at Rs.1 lakh and direct that the same shall be paid to the petitioner within two months from today.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
(ii) S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana & Another decided on 09.01.2008, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"14. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an appropriate direction may be issued to the Government to pay interest to the appellant who had retired on June 30, 1998 and about a decade has passed even thereafter. He, therefore, submitted that the matter may be finally concluded by this Court by passing appropriate orders. We would have certainly considered this aspect and prayer made by the appellant but for the fact that the High Court had not entertained the petition and it was summarily dismissed. The High Court thus was not having the affidavit on behalf of the respondent Authorities. In the affidavit filed by the State-Authorities in this Court, the stand taken by Government is that vigilance enquiries are still pending against the appellant. The said affidavit is of January, 2005. In the affidavit in rejoinder, the writ-petitioner has stated that the alleged pendency of the vigilance enquiryif any is insignificant. We are also not aware as to what has happened thereafter though considerable period has elapsed. In view of all these facts, in our opinion, it would be in the interest of both the parties that we may remit the matter to the High Court so as to enable the High Court to consider the matter on merits and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. We are mindful that the appellant is a 11 OA No.129/24 Item No.100 (C-4) senior citizen and the prayer relates to interest on retiral dues paid to him after four years. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, we request the High Court to give priority to the case and decide it finally as expeditiously as possible, preferably before June 30, 2008.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
16. Before parting with the matter, we may clarify that we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, one way or the other. As and when the writ petition will be placed before the High Court, it will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made by us hereinabove.
(iii) Dr. Surendra Kumar Vs. Commissioner, EDMC decided on 28.05.2019, wherein the Principal Bench of this Tribunal has held as under:-
"4.0 The O.A. is disposed off, with a direction to the respondents to release all retiral dues namely gratuity commutation of pension, leave encashment, GIS as per instructions enforced by 7th CPC. The GPF amount is also required to be released. The respondents shall prepare a Due and Drawn statement on this basis and the balance amount not paid yet, shall be released along with GPF rate of interest from a date three months after superannuation i.e. w.e.f. 1.5.2016 until the date they are released. The Due and Drawn statement shall also include the calculations of interest and will be supplied to the applicant when the dues are paid. The applicant shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal, if some grievance still subsists. No costs."
4. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents do not dispute the factum of delay and submitted that the 12 OA No.129/24 Item No.100 (C-4) payment of legitimate dues of the applicant was delayed due to the fact that in May, 2012, MCD was trifurcated into North, South and East Delhi Municipal Corporations. We observe that this Tribunal vide order dated 27.07.2023 directed the respondents to file a short affidavit along with the required information clarifying the query raised by this Tribunal on the said day. Pursuant to which, the respondents have placed on record an additional affidavit stating therein that MCD is facing acute financial crises since last few years. The difficulties of MCD have further intensified due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic due to which the internal sources of revenue have dried up. It is pertinent to mention that due to continuing financial crunch, salary, pension, terminal benefits, arrears in respect of regularization of SKs, ACP, MACP, DA, Bonus, Medical Pensioner, 7th CPC to employees and contractors' payment of MCD have not been paid on time.
5. Learned counsels for the respondents further rely upon decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2640/2016 titled Sh. Kalu Ram Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation decided on 18.05.2023, which reads as under:-
"9. For the reasons stated herein, the OA is allowed. The applicant's case be considered for grant of benefit under second financial up- gradation under the MACP Scheme, if there is no other impediment other than stipulated in the counter reply. The pay of the applicant shall be fixed accordingly and he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. As we are informed that the MCD is facing acute financial hardship, the applicant may not be entitled to any interest. The said exercise be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is an undisputed fact that there has been delay in releasing the retiral dues to the applicant. Therefore, on the basis of well settled law, as enumerated herein above, all the OAs are disposed with a direction to the respondents to release all remaining retiral benefits due to the applicants from the date of their retirement. While doing so, the respondents shall provide to the applicants due and drawn statement. Interest for delayed payment, at this state, cannot be acceded to as we are informed that 13 OA No.129/24 Item No.100 (C-4) the MCD is facing acute financial crises. This exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which all the applicants shall be entitled to interest @ 12% from the date of expiry of period of three months as stated herein above. If there is any further delay beyond the period of six months, then the applicants shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 12% instead of at the rate of 7.5%.
7. All the OAs stand disposed against the background of the aforesaid directions. Associated MA, if any, also stands disposed of.
There shall be no orders as to costs."
3. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions and after perusing the aforesaid decision, the present OA is also disposed of in terms of para 6 of the above quoted decision in OA No.2147/2023.
5. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Manish Garg) Member(J) /vb/