Bombay High Court
Shrikant Ramchandra Inamdar vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 22 March, 2021
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: K.K.Tated, Abhay Ahuja
wp-3601-2018final.doc
ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3601 OF 2018
Shrikant Ramchandra Inamdar ]
citizen of India, having his residential ]
address at 301, Tropical Prima, Vishnu ]
Nagar, Thane (W) 400 602. ] .. Petitioner
V/s.
1 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai]
through the Additional Municipal ]
Commissioner (Eastern Suburb) ]
Mumbai 400 001. ]
2 State of Maharashtra ]
through Government Pleader ]
Original Side, ] .. Respondents.
Mr. Akshay Puranik with Ms. Vrushali Pokharna i/b. Pragnya
Legal, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Patil with Ms. Rupali Adhate, for the Respondent No.1-
MCGM.
Mr. Abhay L. Patki, Addl. G. P. for Respondent No.2-State.
CORAM : K.K.TATED AND
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 22, 2021.
JUDGMENT :(Per ABHAY AHUJA, J.) . By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking a direction of this Court to Respondent No.1-Corporation to make payment of gratuity amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Petitioner together with interest @ 18% per annum from 1st May 2014 till the payment.
1/16 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:09:09 :::wp-3601-2018final.doc (2) Petitioner is a senior citizen who was employed with the Respondent-corporation since 1980 till he retired from the service on 30th April 2014 as Sub-Engineer at its SWD Department, Ghatkopar. Petitioner was aggrieved by the refusal to pay gratuity dues of the Petitioner. He relies upon the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act,1888, Bombay Municipal Corporation (Service Regulation) 1989 and Mumbai Municipal Corporation Pension Rules,1953 (the "Pension Rules") relating to service and post retirement benefits of its employees.
(3) It is pertinent to record that during the pendency of this petition, Respondent-Corporation has released the gratuity amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 1st January 2021. However, it is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that as the Petitioner had retired on 30.4.2014, the gratuity amount was due from 01.5.2014 but had been wrongfully withheld on the pretext of certain judicial proceedings pending against the Petitioner, which gratuity has come to be paid only after the filing of the Writ Petition and during the pendency of this Petition and that too after an inordinate delay of 6 years and 8 months. It is, therefore, submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to interest on the gratuity amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and has placed on record a chart of interest, which has been taken on record pursuant to order dated 25.02.2021 of this Court. Order passed by this Court on 25.02.2021 is quoted as under:
. "Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2 Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present Petition, Respondent paid their interim benefit 2/16 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:09:09 ::: wp-3601-2018final.doc including gratuity. He submitted that there was delay on the part of the Respondent to pay gratuity amount and therefore, Petitioner is entitled to interest on that amount. To that effect, he has given a chart of interest. Same is taken on record and marked `X' for identification.
3 Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as per the Pension Rules,1953 of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Petitioner is entitled to interest. In support of his contention he has relied upon new Rule 14A , new Rule 45A and new Rule 55A which read thus:
New Rule 14A "(1) Good conduct shall be implied for every, grant of pension Compent authority, may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct.
Provided that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of remaining pension shall not be reduced below the minimum pension fixed.
(2) Where a pensioner is convicted of
a serious crime by Court of Law, action
under Sub Rule (1) shall be taken in the light
of the judgment of the Court relating to such
conviction.
(3) In a case not falling under sub Rule
(2), if the competent authority
considers, that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall, before passing an order under Sub Rule (1), follow the procedure laid down for conducting Departmental Enquiry for imposing of reduction.
New Rule 45A (1)(a) In respect of Municipal employees referred to in Rule 14B, the competent authority shall sanction the provisional pension equal to the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service upto the date of retirement of Municipal employees, or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement upto the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension.
(b)The provisional pension shall be sanctioned by the competent authority from 3/16 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:09:09 ::: wp-3601-2018final.doc the date of retirement, subject to review after every six months upto and including the date on which, after conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings final orders are passed by the competent authority.
(c)No gratuity shall be paid to the municipal employees until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon.
(2) Payment of provisional pension made under Sub Rule (1) shall be adjusted against final retirement benefits sanction to such municipal employees upon conclusion of such proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period (effect is given from 1-8.- 1987).
New Rule 55A Interest on delayed payment of gratuity.
(1) If the payment of gratuity has been authorised after three months from the date when its payment became due and it is clearly established that the delay in payment was attributable to administrative lapse, interest at the following rate on the amount of gratuity in respect of the period beyond three months shall be paid:-
(I) beyond 3 months and upto one year - 7%
(ii) beyond one year - 10% Provided that the delay in the payment was not caused on account of failure on the part of the Municipal servant to comply with the procedure laid down in this behalf.
(2) Every case of delayed payment of gratuity shall suo-motu, be considered by the concerned department and where the department is satisfied that the delay in payment of gratuity was caused on account of administrative lapse, that department shall make a recommendation to the Chief Accountant's department for the payment of interest.
(3) If the recommendation of the
department made under sub-rule (2) is
accepted by the Chief Accountant's
department, the concerned department shall accord sanction for the payment of interest.
(4) In all cases where the payment of interest has been authorised with the concurrence of the Chief Accountant's department concerned shall fix the 4/16 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:09:09 ::: wp-3601-2018final.doc responsibility and take disciplinary action against the Municipal servant or servants concerned who are found responsible for the delay in the payment of gratuity.
(5) If as a result of Corporation's decision taken subsequent to the retirement of a Municipal servant, the amount of gratuity already paid on his retirement is enhanced on account of-
(a) grant of pay higher than the pay on which gratuity already paid was determined.
(b) liberalisation in the provisions of these rules from a date prior to the date of retirement of the Municipal servant concerned, no interest on the arrears of gratuity shall be paid.
(6) Interest at the rates prescribed in Sub Rule (1) above, shall be payable upto the end of the month preceding the month in which payment of gratuity is made.
(7) Payment of gratuity is not made in case of employees against who departmental or judicial enquiry is pending.
However, on completion of departmental/ judicial enquiry, if the Municipal servant is acquitted of the carges levelled against him and if the competent authority sanctions the payment of gratuity the payment will be deemed to have become due and payable on the date immediately following the date of retirement. No interest will however, be payable in case Municipal servant in whose case departmental /judicial enquiry has been withdrawn due to death of Municipal employee.
(8) Above provisions shall be equally
applicable in case of Municipal
employee who dies while in service. (Effect
is given from 1-6- 1988).
4 In view of these facts, learned counsel
for the Petitioner submits that Respondents
may be directed to pay interest on delayed payment.
5 Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that there is no delay on their part to make gratuity payment. It is because of the pendency of criminal matter against the Petitioner that they withheld the Petitioner's gratuity.
6 Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and reliance placed on some of the Pension Rules,1953 of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Respondent to file their additional affidavit in reply stating whether the Petitioner is entitled to interest on 5/16 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:09:09 ::: wp-3601-2018final.doc delayed payment of gratuity amount and if so, how much amount.
7 Reply shall be filed on or before 12 th
March 2021 with copy to the other side.
8 Rejoinder, if any, to be filed on or
before 17 March 2021 with copy to the
th
other side.
9 Matter to appear on board on 22nd
March 2021."
(4) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner reiterates the
submissions recorded as above. He submits that only proceedings relating to the service of the Petitioner with the Respondent- Corporation would fall within the ambit of departmental or judicial proceedings referred to in Rule 45A(c). He submits that the Criminal Complaint No.328/2012 before the Thane Court arose out of a property dispute between the Petitioner and his family members and has nothing to do with the service of the Petitioner with the Respondent-Corporation and, therefore, would not attract Rule 45A(c) of the Pension Rules.
(5) Petitioner, therefore, submits that this Court be pleased to direct Respondent-Corporation to pay interest for which he is entitled not only as Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 but also as per Rule 55A of the Pension Rules for the delay of 6 years and 8 months.
(6) It is also submitted by Learned Counsel for Petitioner that Petitioner is a senior citizen and he is completely financially dependent on his savings and retirement benefits. That Petitioner is also suffering from various ailments for which he is undergoing treatment and therefore needs funds.
6/16 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:09:09 :::wp-3601-2018final.doc (7) Pursuant to the order dated 25th February, 2021 referred to above, Additional Affidavit in reply dated 12 th March 2021 has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.1, inter alia stating the following :
"2 I say that it is an admitted fact that a criminal complaint before the Magistrate Court, Thane was filed against the Petitioner by his mother wherein he was arrested and released on bail. It is further admitted fact that the said criminal complaint was pending for hearing and disposal on the date of retirement of the Petitioner i.e 30.04.2014. I say that it is admitted fact that the Petitioner like other employees of the Municipal Corporation are governed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation (Service) Regulations, 1989 and Mumbai Municipal Corporation Pension Rules,1953. I say that there is no dispute that Rule 45A of the Pension Rules,1953 clearly in sub rule (1) (c) states that "No gratuity shall be paid to the Municipal Employees until the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings and issues of final orders therein." I say that since judicial proceedings were pending against the Petitioner, the Respondent Corporation had no option but not to pay the gratuity amount, and pay all other retirement benefits to the Petitioner. 4 I say that the Petitioner by letter dated 17.06.2019 forwarded a copy of judgment dated 20.05.2019 (wrongly typed as 20.062019) passed by the Addl.Chief Magistrate Court, Thane in the Petitioner's matter. I say that after receipt of the order dated 20.05.2019, the concerned Department of Respondent Corporation immediately took steps to release the gratuity amount of the Petitioner. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-1 is a copy of letter dated 17.06.2019.
6 I say that the Respondent Corporation have not delayed the payment of gratuity purposefully or due to any administrative lapses, and the same was withheld only due to sub rule (1)(c) of new rule 45A of the Pension Rules,1953. Hence, the issue of payment of interest does not arise. I say that there is no challenge to the constitutional validity of Pension Rules of the Municipal Corporation in this Petition. I say that for the reasons stated above, the present Writ Petition should not be entertained and be dismissed with costs. 7 I say that the present matter is not pertaining to rule 14B. I say that the present matter is specifically covered by new rule 45A (1)(c). I say that the Petitioner is well aware that he is not covered by Rule 14A and 7/16 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:09:09 ::: wp-3601-2018final.doc hence after retirement on 1.05.2014, and the Petitioner with ulterior motives filed Petition in the month of August 2018."
(8) Learned Counsel for MCGM, Mr. Patil referring to the above paragraphs of the Additional Affidavit, submits that this is clearly a case where in view of the Pension Rules of 1953 of the Respondent-Corporation, no interest would be payable to the Petitioner. Referring to sub-rule (c) of Rule 45A, he would submit that judicial proceedings referred to therein are any proceedings that would be pending against the petitioner which would also include the proceedings pending in the Criminal Court even if arising in a private dispute. He submits that therefore to say that only proceedings relating to the service of the Petitioner with the Respondent-Corporation would be covered by the said Sub Rule would not be correct. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Hira Lal v/s. State of Bihar & Others (2020) 4 SCC 346 he urges that if the Supreme Court while considering the new Rule 43(c) inserted in the Bihar Pension Rules held that till the criminal proceedings are concluded, the State is empowered to legally withhold 10% of the amount, then the withholding of gratuity by the Respondent-Corporation till the pendency of the criminal matter involving the Petitioner would not be illegal. In support of his contention, he further refers to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Wazir Chand v/s. Union of India (2001) 6 SCC 596. He submits that if the Supreme Court has upheld the withholding of gratuity in the case of an employee who had continued to occupy the Government Quarters even after superannuation holding that since the Appellant had been un- 8/16 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:09:09 ::: wp-3601-2018final.doc authorizedly occupying the Government quarters and failed to pay the penal rent in accordance with the Rules, there was no illegality in those dues being adjusted against the death-cum-retirement dues of the Appellant. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that till the criminal proceedings were pending in the case of the Petitioner, gratuity was rightly withheld.
(9) The learned counsel for MCGM submits that, therefore, there has been no delay in the payment of gratuity as the Petitioner had forwarded copy of the Judgment dated 20.05.2019 in Criminal Case bearing No.328 /2012 before Thane Court disposing the matter, by letter dated 17.06.2019 and the concerned department of the Respondent Corporation immediately took steps to release the gratuity amount of the Petitioner which was finally paid to him on 1 st January 2021. Since there has been no delay on the part of the Respondent-Corporation there is no question of payment of interest to the Petitioner.
(10) We have heard Mr.Puranik, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Respondents and with their assistance, we have perused the papers and proceedings in the matter.
(11) Admittedly, Petitioner retired from service on 30 th April 2014. Though he received other benefits, his gratuity dues were held up in view of the pending criminal proceedings in a property dispute with his family members. For ease of reference, Rule 9/16 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:09:09 ::: wp-3601-2018final.doc 45A(c) which is quoted as under:
"No gratuity shall be paid to the municipal employees until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon."
We note from the proceedings that in criminal case bearing No. 328/2012 pending before the Magistrate Thane, the mother of the Petitioner had filed the case against the Petitioner and his son in respect of the gift deeds which were registered in respect of the property which was purchased by her husband in Thane. This was a criminal proceeding arising out of a property dispute which was disposed of vide judgment dated 20.05.2019. These were not proceedings relating to the service of the Petitioner with the Respondent-Corporation. Therefore new Rule 45-A (c) would in our opinion not apply to the case of the Petitioner.
(12) Having observed that Rule 45A(c) does not have application to the case of the Petitioner, the next question would be whether the Petitioner would be entitled to interest for the delayed payment of gratuity. To answer this question, it would be pertinent to refer Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which is quoted as under:-
Section 7 in The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
7. Determination of the amount of gratuity.--
(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed, for payment of such gratuity. (2) As soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer shall, whether an application referred to in sub-section (1) has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined.
23 [(3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.
(3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by 10/16 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:09:09 ::: wp-3601-2018final.doc notification specify: Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.] (4) (a) If there is any dispute to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under this Act or as to the admissibility of any claim of, or in relation to, an employee for payment of gratuity, or as to the person entitled to receive the gratuity, the employer shall deposit with the controlling authority such amount as he admits to be payable by him as gratuity. 24 [***] 25 [(b) Where there is a dispute with regard to any matter or matters specified in clause (a), the employer or employee or any other person raising the dispute may make an application to the controlling authority for deciding the dispute.] 26 [ 27 [(c)] The controlling authority shall, after due inquiry and after giving the parties to the dispute a reasonable opportunity of being heard, determine the matter or matters in dispute and if, as a result of such inquiry any amount is found to be payable to the employee, the controlling authority shall direct the employer to pay such amount or, as the case may be, such amount as reduced by the amount already deposited by the employer.] 28 [(d) ] The controlling authority shall pay the amount deposited, including the excess amount, if any, deposited by the employer, to the person entitled thereto.
28 [(e) ] As soon as may be after a deposit is made under clause (a), the controlling authority shall pay the amount of the deposit--
(i) to the applicant where he is the employee; or
(ii) where the applicant is not the employee, to the 29 [nominee or, as the case may be, the guardian of such nominee or] heir of the employee if the controlling authority is satisfied that there is no dispute as to the right of the applicant to receive the amount of gratuity. (5) For the purpose of conducting an inquiry under sub-section (4), the controlling authority shall have the same powers as are vested in a court, while trying a suit, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely:--
(a) enforcing the attendance of any person or examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses. (6) Any inquiry under this section shall be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purpose of section 196, of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf: Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days: 30 [Provided further that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under sub-section (4), or deposits with the appellate authority such amount.] (8) The appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard, confirm, modify, or reverse the decision of 11/16 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:09:09 ::: wp-3601-2018final.doc the controlling authority.
(13) Sub-section 3(A) to Section 7 is relevant as it provides for payment of simple interest on the amounts of the gratuity which is not paid by the employer. The proviso refers to that no interest would be payable if the delay in payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment of this count.
(14) In the case at hand, it is apparent that there has been no fault on the part of the employee for the delay that has been caused in the payment of gratuity to the Petitioner. We note that vide Standing Order No, 874/(E) dated 1st October, 1987, the rate of interest specified as the simple interest under sub-section is 10% p.a..
(15) Rule-14-A - relied upon by the Respondent is also quoted as under:
New Rule 14A (1) Good conduct shall be an implied for every, grant of pension. Competent authority, may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct.
Provided that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of remaining pension shall not be reduced below the minimum pension fixed.
(2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by Court of Law, action under Sub Rule (1) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the Court relating to such conviction.
(3) In a case not falling under sub Rule (2), if the 12/16 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:09:09 ::: wp-3601-2018final.doc competent authority considers, that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall, before passing an order under Sub-Rule (1), follow the procedure laid down for conducting Departmental Enquiry for imposing punishment of reduction.
It is pertinent to note that Petitioner has not been convicted of any crime let alone a serious crime. Pursuant to order dated 20.05.2019 of the Thane Magistrate Criminal Case No.328/2012 has been disposed of. It does not also appear from the record that the said order has been stayed or the same has been appealed against.
(16) Once it is held that Rule 45A(c) does not apply to the case of the Petitioner, then naturally, the question of payment of interest under Rule 55-A also would arise. New Rule 55A is quoted as under:-
New Rule 55A Interest on delayed payment of gratuity.
(1) If the payment of gratuity has been authorised after three months from the date when its payment became due and it is clearly established that the delay in payment was attributable to administrative lapse, interest at the following rate on the amount of gratuity in respect of the period beyond three months shall be paid:-
(I) beyond 3 months and upto one year - 7%
(ii) beyond one year - 10% Provided that the delay in the payment was not caused on account of failure on the part of the Municipal servant to comply with the procedure laid down in this behalf.13/16 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:09:09 :::
wp-3601-2018final.doc (2) Every case of delayed payment of gratuity shall suo-motu, be considered by the concerned department and where the department is satisfied that the delay in payment of gratuity was caused on account of administrative lapse, that department shall make a recommendation to the Chief Accountant's department for the payment of interest.
(3) If the recommendation of the
department made under sub-rule (2) is
accepted by the Chief Accountant's
department, the concerned department
shall accord sanction for the payment of
interest.
(4) In all cases where the payment of
interest has been authorised with the
concurrence of the Chief Accountant's
department concerned shall fix the
responsibility and take disciplinary action against the Municipal servant or servants concerned who are found responsible for the delay in the payment of gratuity.
(5) If as a result of Corporation's decision taken subsequent to the retirement of a Municipal servant, the amount of gratuity already paid on his retirement is enhanced on account of-
(a) grant of pay higher than the pay on which gratuity already paid was determined.
(b) liberalisation in the provisions of these rules from a date prior to the date of retirement of the Municipal servant concerned, no interest on the arrears of gratuity shall be paid.
(6) Interest at the rates prescribed in Sub Rule (1) above, shall be payable upto the end of the month preceding the month in which payment of gratuity is made.
(7) Payment of gratuity is not made in case of employees against who departmental or judicial enquiry is pending. However, on completion of departmental/ judicial enquiry, if the Municipal servant is 14/16 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:09:09 ::: wp-3601-2018final.doc acquitted of the carges levelled against him and if the competent authority sanctions the payment of gratuity the payment will be deemed to have become due and payable on the date immediately following the date of retirement. No interest will however, be payable in case Municipal servant in whose case departmental/ judicial enquiry has been withdrawn due to death of Municipal employee.
(8) Above provisions shall be equally applicable in case of Municipal employee who dies while in service. (Effect is given from 1-6- 1988).
(17) To withhold the payment of gratuity in the case of Petitioner, in our view, is an administrative lapse. Also there has been no delay on the part of the Petitioner. It is also clear from the above that the delay being more than 1 year, interest @ 10% would become payable.
(18) We now come to the two decisions cited on behalf of the Respondent-Corporation. With respect to the decision in the case of Hiralal (supra) cited by learned Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation, we are afraid that the said case is clearly distinguishable on facts. That was a case where the new rule 43(c) was inserted in the Bihar Pension Rules whereby till the disposal of the departmental or judicial proceedings initiated during service period of the Government servants, the finance department was permitted to release provisional amounts of pension not less than 90% thereby meaning that 10% of the said amount could be withheld till the conclusion of said proceedings which was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the case at hand is factually different from the case that was before the Supreme Court. This is a case where the entire gratuity of the Petitioner was held up in view of the pendency of proceedings pertaining to Petitioner's property dispute. In this case, Petitioner 15/16 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:09:09 ::: wp-3601-2018final.doc has suffered the delay on account of the Respondent- Corporation as the Corporation has based on the criminal proceedings pertaining to the property dispute, having nothing to do with the services of the Petitioner with the Respondent No.2, delayed payment of gratuity for over six years. Therefore, the decision does not help the case of the Respondent. The reliance by the Respondent-Corporation on the decision of Wazir Chand (supra) again is also not of any help to the Petitioner as that was a case where the retired Government servant had continued to occupy government quarters after superannuation and was charged with penal rent which was adjusted from the gratuity amount payable and which action was upheld by the Supreme Court. This as we have seen is not the case in this Petition. We are therefore unable to accept the submissions made by learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation.
(19) Considering the aforesaid discussion,we are of the view that this is a fit case for grant of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity by the Respondent-Corporation.
(20) Hence, the following order:
(A) Respondent Corporation to make payment of interest at
the rate of 10% on the gratuity amount of Rs.10 lakhs to the Petitioner w.e.f 1st June, 2014 till the date of payment of interest within a period of eight weeks.
(B) Respondent Corporation to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Petitioner within eight weeks.
(C) Petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
[ABHAY AHUJA, J.] [ K.K.TATED, J.]
.....
16/16
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 23:09:09 :::