Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
S.V.Raman vs Union Of India on 26 February, 2014
(Reserved)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.388 of 2013
Jabalpur, this Wednesday, the 26th day of February, 2014
HONBLE SHRI G.P.SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HONBLE SHRI M.NAGARAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
S.V.Raman, son of Late Shri K.Sabharatnam,
Aged about 74 years, resident of c/o. Shri D.K.Dutta,
Retd. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax E-3,
Adarsh Nagar, Near Padbnabhpur, Dist.
Durg-492001 (Chhattisgarh) -Applicant
(By Advocate Shri A.P.Shrivastava)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, through Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi 110001.
2. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan,
Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P)-462011.
3. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan,
Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 492001.
4. Zonal Accounts Officer, Central Board of Direct Taxes,
82, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Zone-II, Bhopal-462011.
5. Pay & Accounts Officer, Central Pension Accounting Office,
Ministry of Finance, Trikoot II Complex, Bhikaji Cama Palace,
R.K.Puram, New Delhi 110066. - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri A.P.Khare)
(Date of reserving the order 21.02.2014)
O R D E R
By M.Nagarajan, JM :-
By the present Original Application, the applicant, a retired Income Tax Officer on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.1997 seeks the following direction to the respondents:
(i) To pay compound interest @ 14% on late payment of pension from 01.07.1997 to 21.07.2011.
(ii) To pay pension from July 2011 to Sept. 2011which is paid lesser by Rs.20,928/-.
(iii) To pay medical allowance along with compound interest @ 14% per annum.
(iv) To pay compensation of Rs.15 lakh as applicant suffered humiliation in family and in society.
(v) To pay TA bill of Rs.11,690/- along with interest.
(vi) To file due and drawn statement from 01.07.1997 to date to verify correctness of payment.
2. The admitted facts are that the applicant attained superannuation on 30.06.1997 and as on date of retirement, he was in receipt of certain articles of charges issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The departmental enquiry initiated on 29.03.1996, was dropped by the order dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure A-2) and as a consequence of which, the applicant has been making repeated requests to the respondents to expedite the payment of pension, gratuity and medical allowances etc, but there was no response to his request and having left with no other option, he approached this Tribunal in OA No.295/2011. This Tribunal, by the order dated 18.04.2011 directed the respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the applicant and to grant him necessary reliefs, within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order dated 18.04.2011 passed in the said OA No.295/2011. Since, the order was not complied with within the time allowed, he initiated contempt proceeding against the respondents in CCP No.18/2012, and this Tribunal, by the order dated 17.10.2012 (Annexure A-9) recorded compliance of the order dated 18.04.2011 in OA No.295/2011 with an observation that if the applicant is still aggrieved by the order, he may take recourse to the remedies available under the law.
3. According to the applicant, the order dated 16.08.2012 passed by the respondents in compliance of the order dated 18.04.2012 in the said OA No.295/2011, does not contain the order for payment of all the claims made by him in his said OA No.295/2011, and hence, he presented the Original Application seeking the aforesaid directions to the respondents.
4. The respondents have filed their reply contending that the applicant is not entitled for any of the aforesaid direction as sought by him.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant Shri A.P.Shrivastava and Shri A.P.Khare, leanred counsel for the respondents, perused the pleadings and the documents annexed to the pleadings of both the parties.
6. Shri A.P.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the disciplinary proceeding for major penalty under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which was initiated against the applicant vide charge memorandum dated 29.3.1996 came to be closed by the order dated 18.03.2010 and in view of the fact that the applicant attained superannuation on 30.06.1997, he is entitled for payment of interest on gratuity, on pension amount in a sum of Rs.20,928/-, which is paid lesser while calculating the pension amount and on medical allowances. He further submitted that the respondents having initiated the disciplinary proceeding by issuing the articles of charges dated 29.3.1996, they ought to have completed the enquiry in a expeditious manner by considering the fact that as on the date, on which the articles of charges was issued to him i.e. on 29.03.1996, he was on the verge of the retirement, but for the reasons best known to them, they prolonged the departmental enquiry initiated against him, without taking any further steps and ultimately closed the departmental enquiry by the order dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure A-2).
7. Shri A.P.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant by inviting our attention to the Government of India decision issued under Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules contended that, in view of the fact that the departmental enquiry was closed by the respondents by the said order dated 18.03.2010, the gratuity and other retiral benefits payable to the applicant will be deemed to have fallen due on the date following the date of retirement of the applicant i.e. 01.08.1997 for the purposes of payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity and as such, a direction is to be issued to the respondents for payment of interest towards the delay in making payment gratuity etc. He further submitted that though he claimed compound interest @ 14% per annum, if the same cannot be ordered to be given, he is entitled for payment of interest at the rate prescribed by the Government.
8. Per contra, Shri A.P.Khare, learned counsel for the respondents drawing our attention to Rule 69 (C) of the CCS (Pension) Rules argued that the respondents cannot be faulted upon in withholding the pensionary benefits of the applicant on his retirement on 31.07.1997, since, Sub Rule (C) of Rule 69 mandates that, no gratuity shall be paid to the government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon.
9. By emphasizing upon the aforesaid rules, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that admittedly as on the date on which the applicant attained superannuation i.e. on 30.06.1997, he was in receipt of articles of charges vide the memorandum dated 29.03.1996 and the same came to be concluded only on 18.03.2010, and as such the gratuity allowed to be drawn by the applicant will be deemed to have fallen due on the date of issue of orders by the competent authority i.e. on 18.03.2010 and consequently, no direction can be issued to the respondents for payment of interest towards gratuity and other retiral benefits from the date of retirement of the applicant. He further submitted that no direction, as prayed by the applicant for payment of interest on delayed payment of pension, commuted value of pension, leave encashment and arrears of pay etc can be issued, as, there is no provision under Rule 68 of CCS (Pension) Rules which allows for payment of delay on retirement gratuity etc.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents, Shri A.P.Khare, replying to the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant Shri A.P.Shrivastava upon the reliance placed by him under paragraph 3 of Rule 68 of CCS (Pension) Rules, submitted that the Government of Indias decision relied upon by the applicant can be invoked only in a situation where upon the conclusion of the departmental proceeding, a government servant is fully exonerated, but in the instant case, the applicant is not fully exonerated. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the following sentences in the order dated 18.03.2010 under which a decision was taken to close the departmental proceeding initiated against the applicant. After careful examination of the matter, the disciplinary authority has decided closure of the disciplinary proceeding initiated vide memorandum dated 29.03.1996 along with conveying the government displeasure to the applicant for the misconduct noted in respect of transaction pertaining to acquisition of a motor-car. By reading this portion of the said order dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure A-2), the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the aforesaid sentences of the order demonstrates that the applicant is not fully exonerated and as such, no reliance can be placed by the applicant upon paragraph 3 of the Government of Indias decision under Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.
11. Upon hearing the counsel for the applicant and the respondents, the question that arises for our consideration is whether the applicant, whose gratuity has been withheld under Rule 69 (C) of CCS (Pension) Rules, would be entitled for interest on the withheld payment of gratuity.
12. While dealing with this question, we may observe that according to the simple logic of the applicant his gratuity was withheld from 1.7.1997 (when he retired from service) till 21.07.2011, (when gratuity was eventually released to him) i.e. for a period of 14 years. If the delay in conclusion of the departmental proceeding is solely attributable to the respondents, then under such circumstances, a direction is required to be issued to them to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. But, on the other hand, if the delay is for fault of the applicant, no direction can be issued to the respondents for payment of interest on the delayed payment. Admittedly, the applicant was in receipt of the articles of charges issued under memorandum dated 29.3.1996, whilst he was in service. The applicant no where asserted that he was not at fault for the delay in concluding the enquiry. He did not mention anything about the different stages of enquiry in pursuance of charge memo dated 29.3.1996, and on what basis a decision was taken to close the said departmental enquiry. We have carefully perused the order dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure A-2) under which the disciplinary authority has taken a decision for closure of the disciplinary proceeding initiated vide charge memo dated 29.03.1996 (Annexure A-2). A plain reading of the said order dated 18.03.2010 manifestly reveals that the same is not in the nature of full exoneration of the applicant. In other words, it is not an order of exoneration simplicitor. It reveals that the same came to passed with half heartedness conveying the displeasure of the government for the misconduct alleged against the applicant in the charge memorandum dated 29.3.1996. We observed the fact that the applicant since from the date of receipt of articles of charges dated 29.3.1996 till 18.03.2010 (the date on which a decision was taken to close the disciplinary proceeding by conveying the displeasure of the government) has not taken any steps in getting the result of the proceeding initiated against him. There was no impediment whatsoever for him to approach the Tribunal at the relevant point of time i.e. either immediately on receipt of the charge memo dated 29.03.1996 or immediately of his retirement i.e. on 30.06.1997 or on any date immediately subsequent thereto. The applicant has slept over his right to have a speedy disposal of the departmental enquiry initiated vide the memorandum dated 29.03.1996. Therefore, in these circumstances, a presumption is required to be drawn that the applicant is not a person who is found not to be at fault in getting the retiral benefits immediately after his retirement, since his silence towards conclusion of the D.E. has a major role.
13. Sub Rule (C) of Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules imposes a duty on the respondents directing them not to pay the gratuity until the conclusion of the departmental proceeding and issuance of final order thereon. Thus, it seems that the respondents have not paid the gratuity to the applicant by adhering to the mandate of Rule 69 (C) of CCS (Pension) Rules. The disciplinary proceeding initiated against him has come to an end on 18.08.2010. As already pointed out that under the said order dated 18.08.2010, the applicant was not fully exonerated, but the proceedings were closed conveying the displeasure of the government as to the misconduct alleged against him in the charge memo dated 29.03.1996. The applicant has no grievance whatsoever as to the manner in which the departmental enquiry initiated against him was closed, and the consequence of which requires to arrive at a conclusion that the applicant has accepted the order dated 18.03.2010 without any demur or protest whatsoever. Hence, we are unable to accept the argument advanced that as per paragraph 3 of the Government of Indias decision issued under Rule 68 of CCS (Pension) Rules, the applicant is entitled for payment of interest on gratuity.
14. The learned counsel for the applicant, Shri A.P.Shrivasatva, by referring to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Y.K.Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., 2013 STPL (LE) 47151 SC argued that the applicant is entitled for payment of interest on delay in payment on gratuity. The issue involved before the Honble Supreme Court in the said case is that, whether an employee is entitled to deny the payment of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits on the ground that there exists no express provision as to payment of interest. As such the said judgment in the case of V.K.Singla is of no relevance in view of the fact that Rule 68 of CCS (Pension) Rules provides for interest on delayed payment of gratuity.
15. In so far as reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicant upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., 2013 STPL (LE) 47895 SC, we may observe that the question that arose before the Honble Supreme Court in the said case is, whether an administrative instruction will prevail over a particular rule which occupies with field relating to pension. In the instant case, no such question arises and hence, the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the said Jitendra kumar case also has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case.
16. With regard to the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of M.P. in the case of Nand Kishore Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P, (2013)(1) M.P.H.T. 520. and others, we may observe that the question that was discussed by the Honble High Court of is, under what circumstances the government can exercise the power of withholding pension. In the case on hand, the question is not as to withholding of the pension, but the issue is interest on delayed payment of gratuity and hence, the said judgment is also of no relevance to the case on hand. Similarly is the position in so far as the judgment relied upon by the applicant in the case of General Manager, District Central Co-operative Bank Mydt., Gwalior Vs. Deendayal Gaud, (2013)(1) M.P.H.T.346.
17. Coming to the direction sought by the applicant to pay compound interest at 14% on late payment from 17.7.1997 to 21.07.2011, we may observe similar was his prayer before this Tribunal in OA NO.794/2008. The said OA No.794/2008 was disposed of by the order dated 11.09.2009 (Annexure A-4). The question that arose before this Tribunal in the said OA No.794/2008 is whether a direction can be issued for payment of interest on the delayed payment of pension from 1.07.1997 to 21.07.2011. While answering to the said question at para 10 of the said order, this Tribunal held that, in such circumstances we hold that though exact liability cannot be decided, but keeping in view that the payment on account of provisional pension has been delayed to certain extent, the applicant needs to be compensated in lieu of interest & there the respondents are directed to grant him a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five thousand only), a fixed amount, on account of said delay. In the reply filed by the respondents it is found that the said sum of Rs.25,000/- has already been paid to the applicant. Hence, in view of the fact that the Tribunal by the order dated 11.09.2009 in the said OA No.714/2009 directed the respondents to compensate the applicant a sum of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of interest towards late payment of pension, the prayer of the applicant for payment of interest on late payment of pension cannot be reagitated again before this Tribunal. It at all the applicant has any grievance on this account, his remedy lies elsewhere and not before this Tribunal.
18. With regard to the other directions sought by the applicant, we may observe that the applicant has already approached this Tribunal in OA NO.295/2011 claiming similar reliefs and the Tribunal by the order dated 18.04.2011 disposed of the said OA No.295/2011 with a direction to the respondents to treat the averments and grounds urged in the said O.A. as his representation and pass appropriate order. In obedience of the order of this Tribunal dated 18.04.2011 in said OA No.295/2011, the respondents have passed the order dated 16.08.2012, and the same is produced by the applicant at Annexure A-1 to the OA. A perusal of the order dated 16.08.2012 reveals that each of his claims has been dealt with and the applicant has not challenged any portion of the order dated 16.08.2012. The relief sought by the applicant at para 8.(c) to 8.(i) in the present OA, were already sought by the applicant in this said OA No.295/2011, and the Tribunal by the order dated 18.03.2011 directed the respondents to look into his claim and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In obedience of the said directions, the respondents have passed the order of Annexure R-1. The applicant has not challenged any portion of the order dated 16.08.2012 at Annexure AI. Hence, the question of issuing any direction with regard to the reliefs at para 8(c) to 8(i) does not arise at all for the reasons that the applicant has not pointed out any illegality of the same by way of challenging any portion of the said order dated 16.08.2012 (Annexure A-1).
19. For the aforesaid reasons though we conclude that no direction can be issued to the respondents for payment on interest on delayed payment of gratuity on the ground that the order dated 18.03.2010 is not a simpliciter exoneration but the same being a qualified one, we deem it proper to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the proposal moved vide letter No.CIT/RPR/Admn./CAT/SVR/012-13/1288, dated 24.07.2012 and to take a decision by examining the reason for not concluding the departmental enquiry for about a period of 14 years i.e. between 29.03.1996 to 18.03.2010, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
20. Accordingly, the OA is disposed of, without any order as to costs.
(M.Nagarajan) (G.P.Singhal) Judicial Member Administrative Member am 9 OA No.388/2013 Page 9 of 9