Madras High Court
Union Of India vs A.Muralidharan on 20 March, 2013
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao, M.Venugopal
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:20.03.2013 Coram THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.28255 of 2012 1.Union of India Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. 2.The Chief Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. .. Petitioners Vs. 1.A.Muralidharan 2.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, (Madras Bench), Additional City Civil Court Building, High Court Campus, Chennai 600 014. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records comprised in order dated 19.07.2011 passed by the 2nd Respondent herein in O.A.No.1272 of 2010 (in so far as prayer B, C and D in O.A.No.1272 of 2010) and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Wilson Addl. Solicitor General of India for Mr.P.Giridharan For Respondents : Mr.Karthick ORDER
M.VENUGOPAL,J.
The Petitioners/Respondents have preferred the present Writ Petition as against the order dated 19.07.2011 made in O.A.No.1272 of 2010 passed by the 2nd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.
2.The 2nd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, while passing the order in O.A.No.1272 of 2010 on 19.07.2011 [filed by the 1st Respondent/Applicant], has, inter alia, observed that '... the respondents are not right in continuing minor penalty proceedings under Rule 9 of Pension Rules after the retirement of the employee. In fact, no orders have been passed by the respondents on the Charge Memo issued on 15.4.2004 till the disposal of the OA.506/2008 in which the said Charge Memo has been quashed' and further opined that since the minor penalty Charge Memo has been quashed, this is a fit case in which interest will be payable for the belated payments on the part of the respondents in settling the retiral benefits and accordingly, for all the due payments to the 1st Respondent/Applicant from 28.02.2006 onwards, which were not disbursed due to the pendency of minor penalty charge memo, directed the Petitioners/ Respondents to pay 8% interest upto the date on which actual payment has taken place, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and consequently, allowed the application in above terms.
3.Being dissatisfied with the order of the 2nd Respondent in allowing O.A.No.1272 of 2010 filed by the 1st Respondent/Applicant, the Petitioners/Respondents (authorities) have filed the instant Writ Petition before this Court as 'aggrieved persons'.
4.According to the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners/ Respondents, the 1st Respondent/Applicant, while serving as Assistant Commissioner of Customs, was served with a Charge Memo dated 15.04.2004 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for imposition of minor penalty in respect of certain incidents that took place in the year 1993.
5.The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners contends that during the pendency of the Charge Memo dated 15.04.2004, the 1st Respondent/Applicant retired from service on 28.02.2006 and because of the pendency of Charge Memo for minor penalty, retiral benefits due to him were not paid.
6.Expatiating his submissions, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the 1st Respondent/Applicant, after his retirement, projected O.A.No.506 of 2008 against the Petitioners/ Respondents on the file of the 2nd Respondent (Central Administrative Tribunal) praying for quashing of the Charge Memo dated 15.04.2004. The said O.A.No.506 of 2008 was allowed by the 2nd Respondent/ Tribunal on 07.09.2009 wherein a direction has been issued to the Petitioners/Respondents to disburse the retiral benefits to the 1st Respondent/Applicant, such as gratuity and commutation of pension etc.
7.At this stage, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners projects an argument that the 2nd Respondent/Tribunal, in its order in O.A.No.506 of 2008 dated 07.09.2009, has not directed the Petitioners /Respondents to pay any interest on any of the retirement benefits.
8.The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners brings it to the notice of this Court that the 1st Respondent/Applicant submitted a letter dated 02.04.2010 in regard to the closure of minor penalty proceedings against him and requested him to pay all withheld benefits together with interest on gratuity and that apart, in the said letter, the 1st Respondent/Applicant has not requested for payment of interest for other due amounts except the gratuity amount.
9.The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners informs this Court that through Cheque Nos.962279 and 962281 dated 07.07.2010 a sum of Rs.3,46,797/- towards gratuity and a sum of Rs.3,99,071/- towards commuted value of pension [based on pre-revised pay] respectively, were paid to the 1st Respondent/Applicant. Also, he was paid a sum of Rs.2,39,981/- towards leave salary as per Cheque No.962831 dated 17.08.2010.
10.Advancing his arguments, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the 1st Respondent/Applicant retired on 28.02.2006 but he sought the reliefs as per the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations, including interest on additional gratuity and additional commuted value of pension from 01.01.2006, which may not be proper because of the fact that the 6th Central Pay Commission itself was set up only on 05.10.2006 and its report was submitted only on 24.03.2008.
11.Apart from the above, the Petitioners/Respondents, in the Reply Affidavit in O.A.No.1272 of 2010 before the 2nd Respondent/ Tribunal, stated that as per O.M.No.110/9/2003-AVD-1 dated 13.04.2009 of DOP&T withdrawing the O.M.No.34/9/86-AVD-1 dated 13.07.1987 which clarified that "the Central Government has the power to withhold or withdraw pension even as a result of minor penalty proceedings initiated against a charged officer during his service and which had continued after his retirement provided grave misconduct or negligence is established" was issued only on 13.04.2009 and was not available on the date of his retirement.
12.Another plea of the Petitioners, taken in the Reply Affidavit to the O.A.No.1272 of 2010, is that as per the O.M.No.38/64/98-P & PW (F) dated 05.10.1999 issued by the Government of India, Department of Pensioner and Pensioner Welfare, there is no provision under CCS (Leave)/CCS (Pension) Rules for payment of interest on delayed payment of leave salary, therefore, the 1st Respondent/Applicant is not entitled to claim interest on delayed payment of leave salary. Furthermore, an Encashment of Leave is a benefit granted under the Leave Rules and it is not a pensionary benefit.
13.The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners invites the attention of this Court that the 2nd Respondent/Tribunal has not considered Rule 69(1)(c) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which specifically provides that no gratuity shall be paid until conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. As such, the liability to pay interest on the same, does not arise.
14.The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners strenuously contends that as per O.M.No.F 7(1)-PU/79 dated 11.07.2009 and No.1(4)/Pen Unit/82 dated 10.01.1983 of the Government of India, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, interest on delayed payment of gratuity is admissible only to those persons, who, on the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, are fully exonerated.
15.However, in the instant case on hand, consequent to the orders of the 2nd Respondent/Tribunal in O.A.No.506 of 2008 dated 07.09.2009, the minor penalty proceedings against the 1st Respondent /Applicant were closed by the Board as per letter dated 25.03.2010 implementing the order of the Tribunal and all the retirement benefits, as directed by the Tribunal, were disbursed on 07.01.2010 and 17.08.2010 and hence, there was no delay in regard to the disbursement of the benefits.
16.The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that in accordance with Rule 68 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, payment of interest on the benefits are required to be considered by the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry or Department and in compliance with the order of the Tribunal dated 19.07.2011 in O.A.No.1272 of 2010, the 1st Respondent/Applicant's case has been referred to the Ministry on 12.10.2011 and through the letter dated 03.09.2012 an approval and concurrence for payment of Rs.1,13,744/- being the amount of interest on delayed payment of gratuity has been ordered to be paid [after departmental deliberations and consultations with Pay and Accounts Office, Ministry (Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi)] and thus, an amount of Rs.1,13,744/- has been paid through e-payment/ECS mode on 12.09.2012.
17.The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the 1st Respondent/Applicant filed O.A.No.506 of 2009 seeking to quash the Charge Memo No.C-14011/14/2001-Ad.V dated 15.04.2004 issued by the 1st Petitioner/1st Respondent and in that O.A. itself the 1st Respondent/Applicant has not claimed interest in respect of the retiral benefits due to him towards gratuity, leave salary, commutation of pension etc. and therefore, the 1st Respondent/Applicant is barred by the principles of Res judicata/Constructive Res judicata in making a claim for interest towards the aforesaid due amounts in the present O.A.No.1272 of 2010 on the file of the 2nd Respondent/Tribunal.
18.To lend support to the contention that the claims in regard to the payment of interest at 18% per annum towards gratuity belatedly paid to the 1st Respondent/Applicant [for the period from 28.2.2006 to 7.7.2006]; for the interest at 18% per annum for the above period on the amount towards commuted portion of pension belatedly paid; for the payment of interest at 18% per annum [for the period from 28.2.2010 to 17.8.2010] on the amount towards leave salary belatedly paid; and the claim regarding the disbursement of arrears of difference in the pay pursuant to the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission's Recommendations, additional gratuity and additional commuted value of pension along with interest on such amount at 18% per annum from 1.1.2006 till the actual date of payment, are barred by principles of res judicata/constructive res judicata, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay V. T.P.Kumaran, [(1996) 10 Supreme Court Cases 561 at page 562] wherein in a claim made by the Respondent/Income Tax Officer who was dismissed from service and when a suit filed by him against his dismissal was decreed and thereupon when he was reinstated but arrears were not paid on a Writ Petition filed, the High Court, by an order dated 16.08.1982, directed the Appellant to pay all the arrears and consequent to the order becoming final, the arrears have been paid and later when the Respondent filed O.A. claiming interest at 18% per annum, the Administrative Tribunal in the impugned order directed the payment of interest, against which Civil Appeal No.11399 of 1996 has been filed and in paragraph 4, it is held thus:
"4.The Tribunal has committed a gross error of law in directing the payment. The claim is barred by constructive res judicata under Section 11, Explanation IV, CPC which envisages that any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in a former suit, shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in a subsequent suit. Hence when the claim was made on earlier occasion, he should have or might have sought and secured decree for interest. He did not seek to and,therefore, it operates as res judicata. Even otherwise, when he filed a suit and specifically did not claim the same, Order 2 Rule 2 CPC prohibits the petitioner to seek the remedy separately. In either event, the OA is not sustainable."
19.He also relies on the Judgment in W.P.(C.) No.6563/2007 dated 07.10.2009 [between Union of India (UOI) V. Sh.R.K.Gupta reported in MANU/DE/3051/2009] wherein the Petitioner challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, awarding interest at the rate of 8% per annum on arrears of retiral/pensionary benefits to the respondent and it is held that a relief which was available and which could be sought by the respondent and which had not been sought by him, could not be claimed by the respondent by filing another petition later on and that no exceptions can be carved out to principle of constructive res judicata and that the respondent shall not be entitled for any other interest at any other rates in the facts and circumstances.
20.He also seeks in aid of the Judgment in W.P.No.41215 of 2004 dated 27.03.2006 [between Y.M.Anandvardhana V. The Director, Electronics and Radar Development Establishment rep. By its Secretary reported in MANU/KA/8262/2006 : 2007 (2) KCCR 1475] wherein it is held that 'Rule 68 is applicable only to the delayed payment of gratuity and not in respect of other retiral benefits' and further that 'the Petitioner was not entitled to any interest for the delayed payment of commuted value of pension'.
21.Also, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners cites the Judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.23592 of 2006 dated 13.01.2011 [between Ram Chandra Gupta V. Union of India (UOI) and others reported in MANU/UP/1559/2011] wherein it is, inter alia, held that 'Payment of gratuity could not be made to the Petitioner till conclusion of disciplinary proceedings against him'.
22.Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent/Applicant that the 1st Respondent/Applicant earlier filed O.A.No.506 of 2008 before the 2nd Respondent/Tribunal praying for issuance of an order to set aside the Charge Memo dated 15.04.2004 issued by the 1st Petitioner/Union of India and the 2nd Respondent/ Tribunal relying on the law laid down by the Full Bench of Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal viz., O.A.No.1744 of 1997 dated 24.04.1999 to the effect that 'continuation of minor penalty under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules cannot be sustained because requirement of Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules grave misconduct or negligence cannot be proved' etc. and the clarification issued by the Government of India in O.M.No.134/17/80-AVD-1 dated 28.02.1981 quashed the Charge Memo dated 15.04.2004 and allowed the Original Application by directing the respondent therein [Union of India - 1st Petitioner herein] to disburse the retiral benefits such as gratuity, leave salary and commutation of pension etc. within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
23.According to the 1st Respondent/Applicant, the order in O.A.No.506 of 2008 dated 07.09.2009 passed by the 2nd Respondent/ Tribunal has become conclusive, final and the same binds the parties.
24.The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent/Applicant submits that for the delayed payment of gratuity, the 1st Respondent/ Applicant has been paid a sum of Rs.1,13,744/- as interest through e-payment, ECS-mode on 12.09.2012.
25.The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent/Applicant cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K.Dua V. State of Haryana and another [(2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 44 at page 47] wherein in paragraphs 13 and 14, it is, observed and laid down as follows:
"13.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the appellant retired from service on 30-6-1998. It is also undisputed that at the time of retirement from service, the appellant had completed more than three decades in Government Service. Obviously, therefore, he was entitled to retiral benefits in accordance with law. True it is that certain charge- sheets/ show cause notices were issued against him and the appellant was called upon to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. It is, however, the case of the appellant that all those actions had been taken at the instance of Mr. Quraishi against whom serious allegations of mal- practices and mis-conduct had been levelled by the appellant which resulted in removal of Mr. Quraishi from the post of Secretary, Irrigation. The said Mr. Quraishi then became Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. Immediately thereafter charge-sheets were issued to the appellant and proceedings were initiated against him. The fact remains that proceedings were finally dropped and all retiral benefits were extended to the appellant. But it also cannot be denied that those benefits were given to the appellant after four years.
14.In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well- founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion, well-founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents."
26.He also relies on the Division Bench Order of this Court in W.P.No.2301 of 2011 dated 07.03.2012 between R.Sundararajan V. Union of India and another [where one of us E.D.R., J. is a party] wherein in paragraphs 6 and 7, it is observed and held as follows:
"6.We are unable to agree with the reasons given by the Tribunal while rejecting the grant of interest on the commuted amount due to the petitioner from the date of retirement till the date of payment. The finding of the Tribunal that if the petitioner is to be paid interest from the date of his retirement, then the portion of pension permitted to be commuted will have to be paid back by him with interest for the period from the date of his retirement till the date of payment of commutation of pension to him, cannot be acceptable. The Tribunal has forgotten the fact that the retired employee has every right to receive the pension, which is not by way of charity or every right to receive the pension, which is not by way of charity or bounty, but the respondents have not paid the same. Moreover, the petitioner has claimed interest only on the amount liable to be paid to him from the date of retirement till the date of dropping the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Therefore, we hold that the petitioner/ applicant is entitled for grant of interest @ 6% per annum, though he claimed 12%, on the amount of Rs.5,62,330/-.
7.Accordingly, we direct the respondents to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.5,62,330/- from the date of retirement till the date of payment to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
27.Further, he banks on the Division Bench Order of this Court in Writ Petition No.17734 of 2011 dated 29.07.2011 between Union of India V. R.Sundararajan [where both of us are parties] wherein in paragraph 6, it is held as follows:
"6.We have gone through the impugned order very carefully. The Tribunal, though rejected interest towards payment of pension, commutation value of pension and gratuity, by relying on various decisions, has come to a conclusion that the first respondent is entitled for interest on leave encashment. We do not think such a direction sanctioning interest on leave encashment is without any basis. The finding is based on various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal and we are not persuaded by the petitioner to take a different view in the matter. Further, since the impugned order has been passed in the substantial interest of justice, it does not call for any interference from this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed."
28.It is to be borne in mind that sub-rule(1) of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 confers a Right on the President to withhold or withdraw pension or a part thereto, either permanently or for a specified period, and to order recovery from the pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 enjoins that the departmental proceedings mentioned in sub-rule(1), if instituted before the retirement of a Government servant or during his re-employment, shall, after his final retirement, be deemed to be the proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded. But, if the grave misconduct or negligence cannot be established as a result of minor penalty proceedings, action under Rule 9 aforesaid for withholding or withdrawing pension etc. cannot be taken against a pensioner in respect of whom minor penalty proceedings had been instituted and have been continued after retirement. Moreover, such minor penalty proceedings, continued after retirement, therefore, do not have any effect on the pension in the matter of reducing or withholding his pension.
29.In such context, the disciplinary authorities have been requested to take steps to see that minor penalty proceedings instituted against Government servants, who are due to retire, are finalised quickly and in time before the date of retirement, so that the need for continuing such minor penalty proceedings beyond the date of retirement does not arise as per the O.M.No.134/17/80-AVD-I, dated the 28th February, 1981 issued by the G.I. Department of Per. & A.R.
30.In the present case on hand, admittedly in O.A.No.506 of 2008 the 2nd Respondent/Tribunal, in its order dated 07.09.2009, has categorically quashed the Charge Memo dated 15.04.2004 issued to the 1st Respondent/Applicant and further, while allowing the Original Application directed the Respondents therein to disburse the retirement benefits such as gratuity, leave salary, commutation of pension etc. In regard to the plea of res judicata/constructive res judicata taken on behalf of the Petitioners/Respondents, when the 1st Respondent/Applicant has filed the second O.A.No.1272 of 2010 claiming interest at 18% per annum towards gratuity, leave salary and commuted portion of pension belatedly paid to him, this Court points out that the 2nd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.S.No.506 of 2008 in paragraph 2 of its order dated 07.09.2009, while referring to the facts leading to the said O.A., has, among other things, observed that '... When the 1st Respondent/Applicant retired on 28.02.2006, the retiral benefits were not disbursed to him on the ground that a Charge Memo dated 15.04.2004, marked annexure A-1 for minor penalty proceedings is pending, hence he filed O.A. seeking to quash the Charge Memo dated 15.04.2004'. The candid factual aspect which cannot be disputed is that the 2nd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, while quashing the Charge Memo dated 15.04.2004 in respect of the 1st Respondent/ Applicant and resultantly, allowing O.A.No.506 of 2008, has directed the Respondent (Union of India - 1st Petitioner) to disburse the retiral benefits such as, gratuity, leave salary, commutation of pension etc.
31.At the risk of repetition, it is to be pertinently point out that the said order in O.A.No.506 of 2008 in between the parties has become final and conclusive. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent/Applicant has been perforced to file O.A.No.1272 of 2010 seeking the relief of interest for the belated payment of gratuity paid to him, claiming interest towards commuted portion of pension belatedly paid to him, claiming interest towards leave salary belatedly paid to him and also claiming to disburse the arrears of difference in pay pursuant to the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission's Recommendations, additional gratuity and additional Commuted Value of Pension along with interest on such amount at 18% per annum in respect of the periods already stated supra.
32.The 1st Respondent/Applicant has admitted that there is only one disciplinary proceeding for minor penalty which has been issued to him on 15.04.2004. As a matter of fact, the clarification issued by the Government of India in OM dated 28.02.1981 and the order of the Full Bench in O.A.No.1744/97 dated 24.04.1999 unerringly point out that the minor penalty proceedings commenced before retirement of an Officer, but continued after his retirement will have no effect on the pension.
33.Indeed, the Petitioners/Respondents passed an order on 18.03.2010 closing the minor penalty proceedings initiated against the 1st Respondent/Applicant by relying on the O.M. dated 28.02.1991 issued by the Government of India Instruction, which has been reiterated by a subsequent Official Memorandum dated 13.04.2009. There is no dispute that the 1st Respondent/Applicant has made representations on 2.4.2010, 22.4.2010, 19.5.2010, 18.6.2010, 23.7.2010 and 20.8.2010 respectively praying for disbursement of his retiral benefits with interest.
34.The Petitioners/Respondents disbursed the gratuity of Rs.3,46,797/- and the commutation value of his pension of Rs.3,99,071/- to the 1st Respondent/Applicant on 07.07.2010. The leave salary has been paid to him on 17.08.2010. Subsequently, Rs.1,13,744/- being the interest on delayed payment of gratuity has been paid through e-payment/ECS-mode on 12.09.2012 to him.
35.In the instant case, even though the 2nd Respondent/Tribunal in O.A.No.506 of 2008 has quashed the Charge Memo dated 15.04.2004 on 07.09.2009, the minor penalty proceedings initiated against the 1st Respondent/Applicant has been closed only on 18.03.2010. When the 2nd Respondent/Tribunal, while allowing the O.A.No.506 of 2008 has quashed the Charge Memo dated 15.04.2004 issued to the 1st Respondent/Applicant and further directed the Respondent (1st Petitioner in W.P.) to disburse the retiral benefits such as gratuity, leave salary, commuted pension etc., it is not open to the Petitioners/Respondents, in our considered view, to take a hyper technical plea or to indulge in legal nuance that leave salary and commutation of pension are not retiral benefits but they are to be paid only as per Rules etc. In fact, they are prevented from taking such a stand at a belated point of time. When the Petitioners/Respondents have not followed the order of the Tribunal dated 07.09.2009 in O.A.No.506 of 2008 in true letter and spirit relating to the disbursement of retiral benefits like gratuity, leave salary and commutation of pension within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order which culminate in filing of O.A.No.1272 of 2010 by the 1st Respondent/Applicant seeking interest for the delayed payments, we are of the considered view that the 2nd Respondent/Tribunal is quite correct in directing the Writ Petitioners [Respondents in O.A.] to pay interest in regard to the delayed payments under different heads due to the 1st Respondent/Applicant sought for in the Original Application before the Tribunal.
36.In view of the fact that the 1st Respondent/Applicant has received the gratuity amount and interest on delayed payment of gratuity and further has received the commuted value of pension as stated in earlier paragraph of this order, this Court, based on Equitable Considerations, directs the Petitioners/Respondents (a) to pay interest at 6% per annum for the belated payment of commuted pension already paid [relating to the period from 28.2.2006 to 7.7.2010]; (b) to pay interest at 6% per annum towards the belated payment of leave salary [for the period from 28.2.2010 to 17.8.2010]; (c) to disburse the arrears of difference in pay pursuant to the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission's recommendations, additional gratuity and additional commuted value of pension with interest at 6% per annum from 01.01.2006 till date of payment, within a period of Eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Sgl To
1.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, (Madras Bench), Additional City Civil Court Building, High Court Campus, Chennai 600 014.
2.Secretary to Government, Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi.
3.The Chief Commissioner of Customs, Customs House,No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001