Delhi High Court
Uoi And Anr. vs Ram Avtar Singh Gothwal on 2 May, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
Bench: Chief Justice, Sanjiv Khanna
$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2853/2011
Date of order: 2nd May, 2011
UOI AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocate.
versus
RAM AVTAR SINGH GOTHWAL ..... Respondent
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
SANJIV KHANNA, J.:
Union of India has assailed the orders dated 15th March, 2010 and 31st August, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (tribunal, for short) directing that the petitioner should pay interest @ 12% per annum to the respondent on belated payment of the retirement dues.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted the delay in payment of retirement dues but submits that the delay was caused because the petitioner did not received full contribution W.P. (C) No. 2853/2011 Page 1 of 3 from the Centre for Railway Information Systems (CRIS). It is further submitted that the full amount was not paid because of revision of pay under the Sixth Pay Commission and, therefore, the amounts deposited by CRIS were found to be less.
3. We are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the tribunal as admittedly there has been delay in payment of retirement benefits by ten months, which is substantially long. The respondent had worked with the petitioner from 17th December, 1998 till 26th July, 2005 when he joined CRIS on deputation as Assistant Manager. On 16th June, 2008, the respondent had submitted technical resignation to the petitioner which was accepted on 10th July, 2008 and the respondent was permanently absorbed in CRIS with effect from 15th July, 2008. The respondent had to make a number of representations and even applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 why and for what reason the retirement benefits were not paid. The petitioner repeatedly replied that the retirement benefits shall be paid within three months but these were paid belatedly on 18th May, 2009 and 24th May, 2009. Even if it is presumed that there was some delay/default by CRIS, this is an internal matter which the petitioner has to take up with CRIS. The respondent cannot W.P. (C) No. 2853/2011 Page 2 of 3 be held responsible and liable for the same. Moreover, the petitioner should have verified the amount, which has been submitted by CRIS. If there was any shortfall, steps should have been immediately taken. The respondent cannot suffer because of lack of communication or fault of the petitioner or for that matter even CRIS. Interest has been awarded to compensate the respondent for loss suffered by him due to belated payment of the retirement benefits.
4. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the tribunal and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE MAY 02, 2011 VKR W.P. (C) No. 2853/2011 Page 3 of 3