Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
S.L. Thareja (Retired) vs Union Of India Through on 7 January, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No.1418 of 2009
New Delhi this the 7th day of January, 2010
Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J)
S.L. Thareja (Retired),
R/o H.No.42D, BG-5,
DDA, LIG Flats,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110083
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri G.S.Lobana)
VERSUS
Union of India through
Secretary Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
Principal Chief Post Master General,
Delhi Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan,
New Delhi -110001
Director of Accounts (Posts),
New Delhi-110054
Secretary, Department of Pensions
and Pensioners Welfare,
Personnel and Training & AR,
Govt. of India,
North Block,
New Delhi-110001
Secretary,
Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India,
North Block,
New Delhi-110001
(By Advocate: Shri Amit Anand )
Respondents
O R D E R
In this application, the applicant prays for payment of interest at the rate of 9% for the delayed payment of pension/pensionary benefits and other retrial dues, calculated from the due date i.e. 01.02.2007 till the date of actual payment.
2. Vide impugned order as at Annexure A-1, the applicant has been informed by the respondents that interest on delayed payment of DCRG has already been paid according to rules, and no interest is admissible on other benefits i.e. commutation of pension, leave encashment and CGEGIS amount as per rules.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have already paid interest on delayed payment of gratuity under Rule 68 of CCS(Pension) Rules. This rule provides for payment of interest in a case where the delay is not attributable to the employee concerned and there has been administrative lapse on the part of the administrative authorities in making payment of gratuity in time. Since the respondents have paid interest on the delayed payment of gratuity amount, it is clear that the delay is not attributable to the applicant and there has been administrative lapse on the part of respondents in making payment of other retrial benefits to the applicant in time. On the same analogy, the interest at the same rate also becomes due to the applicant for the delay in making payment of these retrial dues.
4. The respondents pleaded absence of any provision in the applicable rules to the applicant.
5. The question of payment of interest on the delayed payments of retrial benefits is no longer res-integra. In the case of S.K.Dua Vs. State of Haryana & another (2008 (3) SCC 44), the Honble Supreme Court has observed that if there are statutory rules occupying the field, the applicant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the applicant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, the applicant can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
6. Admittedly, there has been delay in making payments of the retrial dues to the applicant and the delay is not attributable to the applicant. The interest on gratuity is payable in terms of Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 68 reads as follows:-
(1)If the payment of gratuity has been authorized later than the date when its payment becomes due, and it is clearly established that the delay in payment was attributable to administrative lapses, interest shall be paid at such rate as may be prescribed and in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time:
Provided that the delay in payment was not caused on account of failure on the part of the Government servant to comply with the procedure laid down by the Government for processing his pension papers. There are thus two conditions required to be satisfied before interest becomes payable viz., delay is attributable to administrative lapse and delay was not caused on account of failure on the part of the Government servant to comply with the procedure laid down by the Government for processing his pension papers. On the same analogy, the applicant becomes entitled to the payment of interest on other retrial dues as well if the two conditions, referred to above, are satisfied. Under these circumstances, the respondents plea that there is no rule for payment of interest on delayed payments of other retrial dues, would not hold good. There is no provision prohibiting payment of interest in such cases as well. The respondents are duty bound to make good the lose caused by its own administrative lapse.
7. In the facts and circumstances and for the reasons, stated above, I direct the respondents to make payment of interest to the applicant on other retrial dues from the date they became due until the actual payment at the same rate at which interest for the delayed payment of gratuity has been paid to the applicant. The amount difference should be paid to the applicant as early as possible in any case not later than four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The OA is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) Member(J) /usha/