Delhi High Court - Orders
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Kishan Lal on 28 February, 2019
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, A. K. Chawla
$~8.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8072/2017 & C.M. No. 33213/2017
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna with Ms.
Bhuyan, Ms. Pandey, Advs. with Mr.
R.C. Sharma, Principal and Dr. Samar
Bhanu, Pairvi Officer.
versus
KISHAN LAL ..... Respondent
Through: counsel appearance not given
Mr. Samar Bhanu, OSD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
ORDER
% 28.02.2019 Rule 39(3) of the CCS Leave Rules reads as follows:
"(3) The authority competent to grant leave may withhold whole or part of cash equivalent of earned leave in the case of a Government servant who retires from service on attaining the age of retirement while under suspension or while disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against him, if in the view of such authority there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against him. On conclusion of the proceedings, he will become eligible to the amount so withheld after adjustment of Government dues, if any."
The respondent retired on 31.12.2014 while he was undergoing disciplinary proceedings. The proceedings against him were continuing under Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rules. On 24.04.2015, the petitioner passed an order, inter alia, stating:
Now, therefore, it is directed that his retiral dues shall not be released under rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and Rule 39 of the CCS (Leave) Rules till clearance from the competent Authority as well as from the pairary officer/ DEO Z-VI of the said OA No. 3656/2014.
However, he is entitled to draw provisional pension under rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and the concerned HOS is directed to ensure release of his provisional pension timely.""
Thus, an order in terms of Rule 39(3) came to be passed on 24.04.2015. On 05.03.2016, the leave encashment of the respondent was released to him. He was exonerated on 24.08.2017.
The submission of Ms. Pushkarna is that there was no delay in the release of the leave encashment since the same became due only upon conclusion of the proceedings and, in the present case, the petitioner had released the leave encashment amount even prior to that, thus, no interest was payable to the respondent, for the period 01.01.2015 to 05.03.2016 - when the leave encashment amount was released.
Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Chief Secretary and Anr. v. Prem Nath Manchanda, W.P. (C) No. 9394/2017, decided on 11.12.2018 by this Court, wherein no order had been passed relatable to Rule 39(3) of the Leave Rules.
In our prima facie view, it appears that this decision is distinguishable from the present case since, in the present case, an order was passed relatable to Rule 39(3) on 24.04.2015.
Counsel for the respondent seeks a short adjournment to make further submissions. At request, adjourned to 17.10.2019.
VIPIN SANGHI, J A. K. CHAWLA, J FEBRUARY 28, 2019 N.Khanna