Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash Chandra Somani vs The State Of Raj. & Ors on 16 September, 2011
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:ORDER:
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10437/2009.
(Prakash Chandra Somani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others)
DATE OF ORDER : September 16, 2011
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
Mr. Vinay Jain for the petitioner.
Mr. Hemant Choudhary, Govt. Counsel.
BY THE COURT :
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of retirement to the date of actual payment made to him with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is revealed that the petitioner retired from the post of Deputy Director after attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.03.2007. At the time of retirement the petitioner was facing departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the RCS (CCA) Rules, 1958, therefore, the petitioner was not paid retiral benefits. As per Rule 90 of the RCS (Pension) Rules, 1996 if the delinquent employee is facing 2 departmental inquiry at the time of retirement, then, he is entitled to get provisional pension but neither provisional pension was given to the petitioner nor he was paid any retiral benefits due to pendency of the inquiry. The petitioner filed representation to the respondents to pay provisional pension, upon which, the petitioner was informed that he has not submitted Form No.33 for provisional pension, therefore, it has not been sent.
In the inquiry contemplated against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, an order was passed on 24.03.2008 and petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the petitioner became entitled for all the retiral benefits and other service benefits.
The case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Joint Director was considered prior to his retirement but, due to pendency of the inquiry, it was not accorded to him but after conclusion of the inquiry vide order dated 24.03.2008, in which, he was exonerated the petitioner was granted promotion vide office order dated 29.05.2008 whereby the petitioner was promoted to the post of Joint Director against the vacancy of the year 2006-07.
After receiving the promotion order, the petitioner submitted a representation and prayed for releasing the 3 entire retiral benefits. The prayer of the petitioner was not accepted for the reason that no dues certificate is not issued by the competent authority. Thereafter, on 19.11.2008, no dues certificate was issued by the respondent in which it is stated that the petitioner has retired on 31.03.2007 and there is no due against him. Vide Annex.-13 dated 28.01.2009 the petitioner was informed that his pension case will be forwarded after preparation as soon as certificate issued by the competent authority will be received to prove that no departmental inquiry and/or FIR is pending against him. The petitioner was given an option to submit three photographs for granting the provisional pension.
The Deputy Secretary, Education (Group-II) Department issued communication dated 27.02.2009 whereby the certificate was issued that no departmental inquiry or FIR is pending against the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents granted pensionary benefits to the petitioner after fixation of his salary and all amounts were paid on 10.06.2009.
In this writ petition, it is prayed by the petitioner that he is entitled for interest for the period commencing from 01.08.2007 to 10.06.2009 because in this period neither the petitioner was paid provisional pension nor after 4 exoneration in the inquiry on 24.03.2008 final payment was made to him. Therefore, direction may be issued to the respondents to pay interest for the delay in payment of the retiral benefits in accordance with Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 because delay in finalization of the retiral benefits is attributable to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 the petitioner is very much entitled for interest upon the retiral benefits at the rate of 9% from the date the pension became due.
According to the respondents admittedly the petitioner was facing departmental inquiry on the day on which he was superannuated under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules; but, subsequently, vide order dated 24.03.2008 the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him; meaning thereby, the petitioner cannot claim interest from the date of superannuation till order dated 24.03.2008, but, thereafter the case of the petitioner for releasing retiral benefits was to be considered within reasonable time but for want of no dues certificate the matter was not finalized up to the date when Annex.-14 was issued. After receiving the no pendency certificate the matter was considered and all final payment was made in the month of June 2009. Therefore, for valid reasons, 5 the retiral benefits of the petitioner were not paid for which the respondents cannot be held responsible and as such this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that till decision of the departmental inquiry vide order dated 24.03.2008 the petitioner is not entitled for any interest because there was reason left with the respondents not to release retiral benefits to the petitioner and provisional pension was not paid because formalities were not completed by the petitioner. But, after exoneration from the charges in the departmental inquiry vide order dated 24.03.2008, it was the duty of the respondents to release all retiral benefits of the petitioner within reasonable time and due to inaction on the part of the respondents final payment was made to the petitioner on 10.06.2009. The reasons disclosed for the said delay are not tenable because the process was to be completed within reasonable time. Therefore, as per Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner is entitled for payment of interest at the rate of 9 per cent with effect from 25.05.2008 because the respondents cannot be granted more than two months' time for the purpose of finalizing retiral benefits and, thereafter, if delay is caused the respondents are required to pay interest. 6
In this view of the matter, while following Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 and considering the fact that delay in payment of retiral benefits after 24.05.2008 is attributable to the respondent authorities, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 9% to the petitioner upon all retiral benefits for the period commencing from 24.05.2008 up to 10.06.2009 within a period of two months from the date of filing certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that if payment will not be made within two months, then, the petitioner will be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent instead of 9 per cent. No order as to costs.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.
Ojha, a.