Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
R.P. Bhardwaj vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 25 March, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A.No.2260/2013
Order reserved on: 21.03.2014
Order pronounced on:
This the 25th day of March, 2014
Honble Dr.Brahm Avtar Agrawal, Member (J)
R.P. Bhardwaj,
R/o H.No.1173, Sector 15
Sonepat (Har)-131001 .Applicant
(Through Shri Yogesh Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary
Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,
Govt. of India,
New Delhi
2. The Director General
Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan
IInd Floor, Core-IV, Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar
District Centre, Vikas Marg,
Delhi-110092 .Respondents
(Through Shri R. Ramachandran, Advocate)
ORDER
The applicant superannuated as Zonal Director, Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, Bhubneswar (Odisha) on 31.08.2011 and has claimed through this OA interest for the period of delay in payment of his gratuity and commutation of pension @ 18% p.a.
2. Before his superannuation, a complaint against the applicant had been received on 19.08.2010. The applicant was granted provisional pension only, because of the said complaint. The respondents issued a show cause notice to the applicant on 15.07.2013. The applicant submitted his reply on 01.08.2013. The case against him was closed on 07.10.2013 and gratuity and commuted value of pension were released to the applicant on 10.10.2013. Learned counsel for the respondents during the course of the arguments submitted that a charge sheet was issued on 15.07.2013, but failed to show the same despite request.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there was pending on the date of his retirement neither any departmental proceeding nor any criminal case and, therefore, the action of the respondents in withholding his gratuity and commutation of pension was unjustified and illegal.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relied on rule 69 (1) (c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and rule 4 of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules 1981 in support of the said action on the part of the respondents. The said rules read as under:
69. Provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceedings may be pending -
. . .
(1) (c) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon:
Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, for imposing any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 11 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorized to be paid to the Government servant. 4. Restriction on commutation of pension No Government servant against whom departmental or judicial proceedings as referred to in Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, have been instituted before the date of his retirement, or the pensioner against whom such proceedings are instituted after the date of his retirement, shall be eligible to commute a fraction of his provisional pension authorized under Rule 69 of the Pension Rules or the pension, as the case may be, during the pendency of such proceedings.
5. Obviously, the above rules cannot be said to be attracted in the instant case, as neither any departmental proceeding nor any judicial proceeding was initiated or pending against the applicant. There is no substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents.
6. Therefore, I hold that as per the settled case-law the applicant is entitled to grant of interest for the period of delay in releasing his gratuity and commuted value of pension. In this connection, this Tribunals Order dated 21.11.2013 in OA No.4109/2012 [Kamal Ram Meena Vs. UOI], pronounced by Honble Chairman, may be referred to.
7. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay to the applicant simple interest @ 9% p.a. on the amounts of gratuity and commuted value of pension for the period from the date of his superannuation to the date of payment. The interest shall be paid within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
8. The OA is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Brahm Avtar Agrawal) Member (J) /dkm/