Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sukh Darshan Pal Verma vs M/O Railways on 12 February, 2024
1
OA 2174/2020
C-4/Item-36
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A./2174/2020
New Delhi, this the 12th day of February, 2024
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Sukh Darshan Pal Verma
Son of Shri Gurdev Singh
Retd. Executive Engineer/TM (HQ)
Baroda House, New Delhi
Resident of :- 1674/5, Street No.8,
Main Road, Near Chimney,
Near Shimla Puri, Ludhiana,
Punjab-141003 ...Applicant
(Through Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocate)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through :
The Chairman,
Railway Board,
Ministry of Railway,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager
Northern Railway
HQ Office, Baroda House,
New Delhi-110001
3. FA & CAO's Office
Northern Railway
Baroda House,
New Delhi ... Respondents
(Through Mr. G.S. Virk, Advocate)
2
OA 2174/2020
C-4/Item-36
ORDER(Oral)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A) By way of the present OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
"8.(a) direct the respondent to pay interest @12% p.a. on the account of delayed payment of gratuity w.e.f. from March 2017 to Sept. 2019, leave encashment w.e.f. from March 2017 to August 2020, which otherwise and direct to release all the consequential benefit thereof;
(b) Direct the respondent to grant two increments with other cumulative effect;
(c) direct the respondent to release the excessive amount of Rs.78,000/- which has been deducted illegally even after the applicant has already paid amount for availing the benefits of RELHS and also direct the respondent to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amount;
(d) award cost of the case in favour of the
applicant;
(e) pass any other/further orders in favour of the
applicant and against the respondents as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble CAT in facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case is that the present applicant was working as Executive Engineer, Northern Railways. Before his retirement, while he was in service, two charge sheets were served on him dated 10.01.2015 and 28.01.2016 respectively. In respect of the first charge sheet, the disciplinary proceeding was concluded on 22.05.2017. The Disciplinary Authority (DA) imposed the penalty of 20% cut in pension and the period of unauthorized absence was declared as Dies Non. Disciplinary proceedings in respect of 3 OA 2174/2020 C-4/Item-36 the second charge sheet was also concluded on 27.09.2018 and again another penalty of reduction of 10% cut in pension was imposed on the applicant. The applicant retired from service on 31.01.2016. It is admitted that the applicant was paid gratuity of Rs.16,91,250/- in the month of September, 2019. Similarly, the leave encashment amounting to Rs.5,82,542/- was also paid in the month of August, 2020. The applicant claims interest on delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment as well as on the amount of Rs.78,000/- withheld from gratuity on account of RELHS benefits. The applicant made a representation dated 8.02.2019 to the respondents to release his retirement benefits and for payment of interest on delayed payment of the same. As the respondents did not grant interest on delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply, to which the applicant has also filed rejoinder.
4. The applicant in his OA as well as through the arguments by his counsel has tendered the following grounds in support of the relief sought by him. 4 OA 2174/2020 C-4/Item-36 4.1 Learned counsel for the applicant states that after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, on 22.05.2017 and 27.09.2018 respectively in respect of the two charge sheets issued to the applicant, the respondents should have released gratuity and leave encashment immediately thereafter. In the present case, the respondents have failed to release the retirement benefits immediately after the conclusion of the pending disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. The retirement benefits were paid after more than three years from his date of retirement. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that retirement benefits are like private property and the authorities concerned should not withhold release of such benefits without following due procedure of law. In the instant case, the respondents have not invoked any statutory provision for withholding the retirement benefits. They have deducted Rs.78,000/- from the gratuity amount in respect of RELHS. The aforesaid deduction is not justified as the applicant has already deposited a sum of Rs.38,790/- to the railway authorities in respect of RELHS. Learned counsel for the applicant refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. S.K. Srivastava, W.P. (C) 1186/2012 where it has been stated that even if there is no rule for providing grant of interest, there is no bar to grant interest when such retirement benefits like leave 5 OA 2174/2020 C-4/Item-36 encashment are delayed for no fault on the part of the employee. He cited paragraph 4 of the said judgment which reads as follows:
"4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that all other dues had been paid to the respondent along with interest at the GPF rate, but since there was no provision in the leave rules for grant of interest, that is why the present petition has been filed. We do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because there are no rules providing for grant of interest, the respondent would not be entitled to the same. There is also no bar to the grant of interest whenever the leave encashment amount is delayed for no fault on the part of the employee. The government has retained the money from the year 2000 till 2011, which, in any event, was due to the respondent in the year 2000 itself, particularly in view of the fact that even the conditions specified in Rule 39(3) had not been complied with. Consequently, grant of interest on the said amount at the GPF rate by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. In any event, we may also point out that between 2000 and 2011, because of inflation, the real value of the amount that was due to the respondent had substantially eroded, the payment of interest at the GPF rate would only be a kind of balm applied to the injury suffered by the respondent. It may, in fact, actually turn out that the petitioner would not be paying anything more in real terms than what it was liable to pay in the year 2000."
Learned counsel for the applicant avers that in the instant case, the respondents have delayed payment of leave encashment even after conclusion of the second disciplinary proceeding which ended on 27.09.2018.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents drew attention of this Tribunal to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. It is stated that the respondents have initiated the payment of retirement benefits to the applicant like gratuity and leave encashment immediately after 6 OA 2174/2020 C-4/Item-36 conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The last disciplinary case was concluded on 27.09.2018. The respondents vide letter dated 4.10.2018 directed the concerned authorities for processing the pension case of the applicant. However, the period of unauthorized absence of the present applicant from 9.10.2013 to 26.01.2016 was to be finally considered before payment of the leave encashment. Leave encashment is dependent upon the accumulated leave of the applicant and decision regarding his unauthorized absence was a major factor for deciding the amount of accumulated leave of the present applicant. This took some time and the final PPO was issued on 26.03.2019. The unauthorized absence period from 9.10.2013 to 26.01.2016 was decided as Dies Non only on 12.05.2020. Similarly, the unauthorized absence from 27.01.2016 to 31.01.2016 was regularized as LAP vide decision dated 18.06.2020. Because of these decisions, his leave encashment of Rs.5,82,542/- was paid to the applicant on 31.07.2020. The applicant was paid provisional pension just after his retirement on 1.02.2016. His DCRG was paid on 3.09.2019 after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. In view of the above, there is no deliberate delay on the part of the respondents to delay the payment of pensionary benefits to the applicant. It was the nature and circumstances of the case where there are two disciplinary 7 OA 2174/2020 C-4/Item-36 cases which concluded after the applicant retired from service and the period of two sets of unauthorized absence which were to be regularized before payment of leave encashment. Accordingly, the applicant was paid the retirement benefits after the minimum period of processing. Hence, the applicant does not deserve to be paid interest for such short period of delay in processing his retirement benefits.
5.1 As regards alleged excess recovery of Rs.78,000/- regarding RELHS, learned counsel for the respondents states that there is no such double payment by the applicant as claimed by him. As the applicant opted to avail RELHS facilities, he was supposed to pay Rs.78,000/- for availing such benefits. Hence, the said amount was deducted from his gratuity. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the applicant has failed to prove that he has already paid any amount in respect of RELHS for availing such facilities.
6. I have heard the arguments carefully and gone through the records of the case thoroughly.
6.1 The instant case involves short period of delay after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings for processing the retirement benefits in respect of the applicant. It is admitted that two disciplinary proceedings were pending against the 8 OA 2174/2020 C-4/Item-36 applicant which were concluded on 22.05.2017 and 27.09.2018 respectively. It is also admitted that the applicant was paid provisional pension on 1.02.2016, just after his retirement. As the disciplinary proceedings were pending and inquiry was concluded as late as 27.09.2018, the applicant was paid gratuity immediately thereafter. Similarly, commuted value of pension was also paid on 29.03.2019. Taking into account the complexity of the issue that two disciplinary proceedings were pending against the applicant and after conclusion of the inquiry, the competent authority was to consider and decide the unauthorized absence, the short period of delay from 29.09.2018 to 29.03.2019 and 3.09.2019 for commuted pension and gratuity respectively cannot be said to be inordinate delay for payment of these two retirement benefits to the applicant.
6.2 As regards payment of leave encashment, it has been rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that leave encashment depends upon the amount of leave accumulated in favour of the applicant. The two periods of unauthorized absence of the applicant from 9.10.2013 to 26.01.2016 and 27.01.2016 to 31.01.2016 was decided by the competent authority as on 12.05.2020 and 18.06.2020 respectively. The applicant was paid leave encashment on 31.07.2020, a little over one month after the decision by the 9 OA 2174/2020 C-4/Item-36 competent authority regarding the unauthorized absence periods. In view of this, there is no inordinate or deliberate delay on the part of the respondents in respect of payment of leave encashment to the applicant. Thus, the applicant does not deserve to be granted any interest on account of delayed payment of gratuity, commutation of pension and leave encashment. As regards recovery of Rs.78,000/- on account of RELHS, the applicant was given two opportunities to prove that he has already paid the amount during his service period for availing RELHS facilities or the respondents have twice deducted Rs.78,000/- on such account. The applicant failed to produce any documentary evidence in this behalf to prove that the respondents have twice deducted Rs.78,000/- on account of RELHS. This has led to unnecessary wastage of precious time of this Tribunal, for which the applicant is liable to pay cost for the same.
7. In view of the above discussion, the present OA lacks merit and is hence dismissed.
8. As the applicant has wasted precious time of this Tribunal in frivolous allegation against the respondents regarding deducting the amount of Rs.78,000/- twice in respect of RELHS, Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) cost is imposed upon the applicant to be paid to the Prime 10 OA 2174/2020 C-4/Item-36 Minister's Relief Fund within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) Member (A) /dkm/