Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Darshan Kumar Gupta vs M/O Defence on 18 December, 2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A.No.169/2017
Tuesday, this the 18th day of December 2018
Hon'ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Darshan Kumar Gupta (aged about 71 years)
Retd. SE (SG), Group A
s/o late Shri Babu Ram Gupta
r/o 25, South Park Apartments
Kalkaji, New Delhi - 110 019
..Applicant
(Applicant in person)
Versus
Union of India through
Secretary, Ministry of Defence
South Block, New Delhi
..Respondent
(Mr. Rajiv R Raj, Advocate)
O R D E R (ORAL)
The applicant was working as Superintending Engineer (Selection Grade) in Military Engineering Service (MES) under the Ministry of Defence - respondent organization. He applied for voluntary retirement from service (VRS) on 01.08.1996, to be effective from 31.10.1996, which was not considered by the respondents. Since his request for VRS was not considered by the respondents, the applicant approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.1062/1998, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2000. The applicant challenged the said order before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CW No.5349/2000, which was allowed vide order dated 10.01.2002. The Hon'ble High Court ordered that the applicant shall be allowed to retire from service w.e.f. 31.10.1996.
2
2. The applicant had earlier approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.4047/2014 seeking almost the same reliefs that he has claimed in the instant O.A. However, the Tribunal, after noticing that his representation in regard to the reliefs claimed had not been decided by the respondents, disposed of ibid O.A. vide order dated 17.11.2014 with a direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the applicant within 90 days. In compliance of Tribunal's order dated 17.11.2014, the respondents have passed a speaking order dated 09.11.2015, in which they have broadly indicated that a sum of `2,20,622/- has been released to the applicant towards his pending claims. Not satisfied with the order of the respondents dated 09.11.2015, the applicant has approached the Tribunal in the instant O.A. praying for the following relief:-
"8.2 Direct respondent to pay principal amount with 18% p.a. interest compounded half yearly on:
(a) Rs.6000/- (wrongly debited in March, 1980) w.e.f. March, 1980.
(b) Rs.2000/- (missing credit of 1984-85) from the date of subscription onwards.
(c) Interest of Nov. 1996 and Feb., 2003 on the final settlement amount paid on 13.3.2003.
(d) One percent bonus from 1980 onwards on the entire balance at credit of applicant."
3. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply, in which they have, inter alia, stated as under:- 3
(a) There was an unintentional erroneous debit of `6000/- in the GPF account of the applicant in the year 1984-85, which has since been paid to the applicant together with interest at GPF rates amounting to `1,80,308/-.
(b) There was no reflection of amount of `2000/- in the GPF account of the applicant for the year 1984-85, which has also been corrected and the said amount, together with interest at GPF rates amounting to `40,314/-, has also been released to the applicant.
(c) 1% bonus has been paid to the applicant from the years 1981-82 to 2016-17 (March 2017) amounting to `5921/-.
4. The applicant, on the other hand, has contended that the respondents have not paid interest on the final settlement amount for the months of November 1996 and February 2003. He has further stated that the final settlement amount has been paid to him on 13.03.2003 and he was entitled for receiving interest on the final settlement amount from 01.11.1996 to 28.02.2003. The applicant has further contended that the respondents ought to have paid him interest @ 18% on the amounts mentioned at relief 8.2 (a) & (b) of the amended O.A., but they have chosen to pay interest at the GPF rates, which is not correct.
5. Heard the applicant as party in person and Mr. Rajiv R Raj, learned counsel for respondents.
6. I have considered the rival arguments of the parties and have also perused the pleadings.
4
7. Indisputably, the applicant became legally entitled for VRS on 31.10.1996, in terms of the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, referred to hereinabove. Obviously, till 31.10.1996, all statutory deductions, including GPF deductions, might have been made from his salary. Hence, I am of the clear view that the applicant is entitled for receiving interest on his retiral dues w.e.f. 01.11.1996.
8. The respondents have accepted the wrong debit of `6000/- from the GPF account of the applicant in the month of March 1980, as could be seen from paragraph (3) of speaking order dated 09.11.2015 (p.19). They have also admitted a missing credit of `2000/- in the GPF account of the applicant for the year 1984-85. The speaking order indicates that both these mistakes have since been corrected and the said two amounts, together with applicable interest at GPF rates, have been released to the applicant, totalling `2,20,622/-. The applicant confirms this figure but says that he should have been paid interest @ 18% per annum and not at GPF rates. I am not in agreement with the applicant. After all, the missing credit and the wrong debit relate to his GPF account. Any credit to the GPF account becomes entitled for interest at the GPF rates only. Hence, I do not find anything amiss in the corrective action taken by the respondents in granting credits for missing credit/wrong debit to the applicant and paying interest on such credits at GPF rate of interest.
9. As regards the interest payable on final settlement amount, from the records it is quite evident that the applicant has not been paid interest for 5 the months of November 1996 and February 2003. The respondents are required to pay interest for these two months also.
10. As regards 1% bonus payable to the applicant from the year 1980 onwards, the respondents, in their reply, have said that bonus has been paid to the applicant from the years 1981-82 to 2016-17 (March 2017) amounting to `5921/-. The applicant's claim is that he is entitled for bonus on the total amount and not just on missing credit/wrong debit amounts. The applicant also disputes the averment made by the respondents in paragraph (11) of their reply. He submits that no bonus has been paid to him for the years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. His further contention is that he is also entitled for bonus on the amount of `6000/- wrongly debited from his GPF account in March 2018.
10. In view of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, this O.A. is disposed of in the following terms:-
(a) The reliefs claimed by the applicant at 8.2 (a) & (b) of the O.A. are rejected.
(b) The respondents shall pay bonus to the applicant on the total GPF amount for the years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-
83. While doing so, the respondents shall keep in view that `6000/- was wrongly debited from the account of the applicant in March 1980 and he is entitled for getting bonus on this amount as well. Needless to say that the 6 amount of `5921/- already paid to the applicant towards bonus shall be adjusted against the final amount of bonus payable to the applicant as per this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
( K.N. Shrivastava ) Member (A) December 18, 2018 /sunil/