Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sardar Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, Govt. ... on 4 May, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi.
OA NO.2719/2013
Reserved on: 18.04.2016
Pronounced on: 04.05.2016
Hon'ble Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A)
Sardar Singh s/o late Shri Jug Lal,
R/o Nawada Extension,
Opp. Dena Bank, Nawada Village,
New Delhi - 110 059.
Ex-Head Master,
M.C. School Uttam Nagar Old-II,
New Delhi. ....Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Anup K. Das)
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through Commissioner,
Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. R.K. Jain)
ORDER
The short issue involved in the instant OA relates to entitlement of interest on arrears of stagnation increments.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant, who retired as Head Master in the year 1995, was paid arrears of leave encashment of Rs. 725/- on 31.05.2012, Rs.18,465/- arrears of stagnation increment along with other dues on 13.07.2012, and arrears of DCRG amounting to Rs.45306/- and Rs.2442/- were directly transferred into the applicant's bank account. However, the respondent- SDMC declined to grant interest on the arrears of stagnation 2 increments for the period from 01.09.1976 to 30.09.1995. The applicant has simply relied upon the settled principle of law that late payment should be made with interest. The case of the applicant is that the payments due have been made to him after a considerable delay and that too after very big efforts made by him. Hence, the respondents are liable and bound to compensate the applicant by way of interest.
3. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit wherein it has been submitted that the applicant had applied for his dues in 2011 and the payment was made in the year 2012. He applied for his stagnation increment w.e.f. 01.09.1976 to 30.09.1995 as also for leave encashment in the year 2011 and the payment was made to him in May, 2012. It was on account of late submission of the claim by the applicant that the payment had been delayed, hence, no interest is payable on the same.
4. In rejoinder application, the applicant, reiterating the earlier points, submits that since the simple question involved is that a payment, which ought to have been made in 1995, has been actually made in May, 2012, he is entitled to the interest over the delayed payment. 3
5. I have carefully gone through the pleadings available on record as also the documents so adduced and the decisions relied upon by either side. I have patiently heard the oral arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.
6. I take note of the fact that Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides for interest on delayed payment of gratuity. Similarly, there is a provision for payment of interest on delayed cases of pension. For the sake of greater clarity, the provision relating to interest on delayed payment of gratuity is being extracted hereunder:-
"68. Interest on delayed payment of gratuity (1) In all cases where the payment of gratuity has been authorised later than the date when its payment becomes due, including the cases of retirement otherwise than on superannuation, and it is clearly established that the delay in payment was attributable to administrative reasons or lapses, interest shall be paid at the rate applicable to General Provident Fund amount 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.] (2) Every case of delayed payment of gratuity shall be considered by the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry or the Department in respect of its employees and the employees of its attached and subordinate offices and where the Secretary of the Ministry or the Department is satisfied that the delay in the payment of gratuity was caused on account of ^[administrative reasons or lapse], the Secretary of the Ministry or the Department shall sanction payment of interest.
(3) The Administrative Ministry or the Department shall issue Presidential sanction for the payment of interest after the Secretary has sanctioned the payment of interest under sub-rule (2).4
(4) In all cases where the payment of interest has been sanctioned by the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry or the Department, such Ministry or the Department shall fix the responsibility and take disciplinary action against the Government servant or servants who are found responsible for the delay in the payment of gratuity ^[on account of administrative lapses].
(5) Deleted."
The term 'emoluments' has been dealt with under Rule 33 of the Pension Rules and stagnation increment has been included within the terms of emoluments. For the sake of greater clarity, Rule 33 is being extracted as under:-
"33. Emoluments [The expression `emoluments' means basic pay as defined in Rule 9 (21) (a) (i) of the Fundamental Rules which a Government servant was receiving immediately before his retirement or on the date of his death ; and will also include non-practising allowance granted to medical officer in lieu of private practice.] [EXPLANATION. - Stagnation increment shall be treated as emoluments for calculation of retirement benefits.]"
The term 'average emoluments' has been given in Rule 34 of the Rules ibid which provides that it is an average of emoluments drawn by a government employee for the last ten months of his service. I extract the said Rule in full, which reads as under:-
"34. Average Emoluments Average emoluments shall be determined with reference to the emoluments drawn by a Government servant during the last ten months of his service.
NOTE-1. - If during the last 1[ten months] of his service a Government servant had been absent from duty on leave for which leave salary is payable or having been suspended had been reinstated without forfeiture of service, the emoluments which he would have drawn had he not been 5 absent from duty or suspended shall be taken into account for determining the average emoluments:
Provided that any increase in pay (other than the increment referred to in Note 3) which is not actually drawn shall not form part of his emoluments.
NOTE 2. - If, during the last 1[ten months] of his service, a Government servant had been absent from duty on extraordinary leave, or had been under suspension the period whereof does not count as service, the aforesaid period of leave or suspension shall be disregarded in the calculation of the average emoluments and equal period before the 1[ten months] shall be included.
[NOTE 3. - In the case of a Government servant who was on earned leave during the last ten months of his service and earned an increment, which was not withheld, such increment though not actually drawn shall be included in the average emoluments :
Provided that the increment was earned during the currency of the earned leave not exceeding one hundred and twenty days or during the first one hundred and twenty days of earned leave where such leave was for more than one hundred and twenty days.]"
7. I do not find any provision in the Pension Rules which provides for payment of interest on arrears of stagnation increment. Interest, however, is payable on delayed payment of pension even under orders of different Hon'ble Courts. In D.D. Tewari (D) Thr. LRs Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. [AIR 2014 SC 2861], the order made is in respect of pension and gratuity but not in case of delayed payment of arrears on stagnation increment. There are several payments admissible to a retiring employee but delayed payment of stagnation increment does not attract to the provision on payment of interest.
8. In OA No. 3335/2011 [Suresh Kumar V/s. UOI & Ors.) decided on 15.07.2015], the Tribunal was faced with a 6 similar choice. However, while allowing payment of interest on DCRG & Pension, the claim in respect of other allowances was declined. For the sake of greater clarity, relevant portion of the decision is being extracted hereunder:-
"18. In the light of the above discussions, we find that the grounds mentioned in the order dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure 1 to the O.A.), on which the claims of the applicants have been rejected by respondent nos. 1 and 2, are unsustainable. Accordingly, the order dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure 1) is quashed, and we hold and declare that the Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants working in the AIIMS are entitled to same non-functional pay scale (5th CPC) and upgraded pay scale (5th CPC) and corresponding 6th CPC Pay Bands & Grade Pays as have been granted to the Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants working in the Central Secretariat. The respondents are directed to issue appropriate orders and pay them arrears of pay and allowances within two months from today. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we disallow the claim of the applicants for payment of interest on arrears of pay and allowances payable to them on account of grant of pay scales/Pay Bands with Grade Pay with retrospective effect."
9. Accordingly, I find that the claim of the applicant in respect of interest on stagnation increment misplaced and beyond rules. Hence, the same is disallowed and the OA being bereft of merits stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
(Dr. B.K. Sinha) Member (A) /AhujA/