Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ram Parkash Son Of Shri Jiwan Dass vs Union Of India on 22 February, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
(Order reserved on 13.02.2017)
OA No. 060/00422/2016 Date of decision: 22.02.2017
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
Ram Parkash son of Shri Jiwan Dass, age 76 years,
Resident of Flat No.4202, GH 4A, Jal Vayu Bihar,
Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana).
Retired as Upper Divisional Clerk (UDC) from the O/o Garrison Engineer,
Military Engineers Services (MES),
Kapurthala (Group-C).
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Sh. K.B. Sharma.
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. Headquarters,
Chief Engineer Western Command,
Pin 908543, C/o 56 APO.
3. Principal Controller General of Defence Accounts (Pension), Draupadi Ghat,
Allahabad.
4. Garrison Engineer,
MES, Kapurthala-144601.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE : Sh. K.K. Thakur.
ORDER
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
1. By means of present O.A, the applicant assailed the order dated 25.01.2016 (Annexure A-8) whereby his representation which was ordered to be decided by this court qua grant of interest on delayed payment of gratuity, has been rejected.
2. The solitary question arose for my consideration in this O.A as to whether the applicant is entitled for grant of interest on delayed payment of gratuity in terms of the Rule 68 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 or not?
3. The facts are not in dispute but few of them are relevant for proper adjudication of the matter. The applicant joined the respondent department as LDC on 12.01.1963 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.1997. When the applicant was in service, an FIR No. 110 of 16.05.1996 was registered under Section 406,420 & 120 of IPC against him. On the date of retirement, the applicant was only granted the provisional pension and other benefits which become available to him on the date of retirement were withheld by the respondents. Thereafter, the applicant was acquitted from the criminal case by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar vide its judgment dated 05.01.2013. Immediately, the applicant submitted a representation along with the judgment passed in criminal case to respondent no. 3 on 07.02.2013 supplemented by another representation dated 08.05.2015. Thereafter, the respondents released the gratuity amounting to Rs. 99, 792/- vide order dated 27.02.2015 and other retiral benefits like commutation Value of Pension and CGEIS were also released vide order dated 08.05.2015 without there being any element of interest on the delayed payment of aforementioned amounts. Aggrieved against their action for not awarding interest, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A No. 060/00596/2015 for award of interest which was disposed of vide order dated 17.05.2015 with a direction to the respondents to decide his pending representation. The applicant was also forced to file a contempt petition against the respondents. Pending C.P, the authorities passed the order dated 25.01.2016 and accordingly, C.P was disposed of vide order dated 01.02.2016 having been rendered infructuous. Against the impugned order dated 25.01.2016 vide which his claim for award of interest on delayed payment of gratuity was rejected, the applicant is before us by filing the present O.A.
4. In support of aforementioned plea, Sh. K.B. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, vehemently argued that once the applicant has already been acquitted from criminal case, then the applicant becomes entitled for award of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity in terms of Rule 68 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (in short of 1972 Rules) from the date when it was due to him till actual payment is made. Since, the respondents have not decided his representation in terms of Rule 68 of 1972 Rules, therefore, impugned decision qua rejecting his claim for award of interest be declared illegal and arbitrary and a direction be issued to the respondents to award interest @ 18 % per annum from the date it became due till its final payment. To support his argument, he placed reliance upon following judgments:-
i) Harendra Nath Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 1987 (supp.) SCC 56
ii) S.R Bhanrale Vs. Union of India ,
iii) Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P AIR 2000 SC 3513,
iv) Dr. Uma Agrawal Vs. State of U.P.
v) Gorakhpur University Vs. Shitla Prasad Nagendra
vi) Bal Kishore Mody Vs. Arun Kumar Singh & Ors.
5. The respondents resisted the claim of the applicant by filing detailed written statement wherein they have taken a solitary objection that since criminal case was pending against the applicant at the time of his retirement, therefore, under the rule formulation, they have withheld the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits and have allowed the provisional pension only. It is also submitted that after the judgment of acquittal of applicant from criminal case, they have released the gratuity immediately, therefore, this O.A be dismissed being devoid of merit.
6. Sh. K.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the applicant is not entitled for award of interest on delayed payment as at the time of retirement one criminal case was pending against the applicant and immediately, on his acquittal, the respondents released the retiral benefits, therefore, O.A be dismissed.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and have perused the aforementioned pleadings and the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
8. It cannot be disputed that the case of the applicant is governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 being a Central Government Employee. The Government of India's decisions given below Rule 68 of the Rules of 1972 in quite unambiguous terms prescribe for making payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity and other post retiral benefits. The decisions read as under :-
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA'S DECISIONS BELOW RULE 68 OF CCS (PENSION) RULES (1) Admissibility of interest on gratuity allowed after conclusion of judicial/departmental proceedings.-
1. Under the rules, gratuity becomes due immediately on retirement. In case of a Government servant dying in service, a detailed time-table for finalizing pension and death gratuity has been laid down, vide Rule 77 onwards.
2. Where disciplinary or judicial proceedings against a Government servant are pending on the date of his retirement, no gratuity is paid until the conclusion of the proceedings and the issue of the final orders thereon. The gratuity, if allowed to be drawn by the Competent Authority on the conclusion of the proceedings will be deemed to have fallen due on the date of issue of orders by the Competent Authority.
3. In order to mitigate the hardship to the Government servants who, on the conclusion of the proceedings are fully exonerated, it has been decided that the interest on delayed payment of retirement gratuity may also be allowed in their cases, in accordance with the aforesaid instructions. In other words, in such cases, the gratuity will be deemed to have fallen due on the date following the date of retirement for the purpose of payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity. The benefit of these instructions will, however, not be available to such of the Government servants who die during the pendency of judicial/disciplinary proceedings against them and against whom proceedings are consequently dropped.
4. These orders (paragraph 3) shall take effect from the 10th January, 1983.
[G.I., Dept. of Per. & A.R., O.M. No. F. 7 (I)-P.U./79, dated the 11th July, 1979 and No. I (4)/Pen. Unit/82, dated the 10 th January, 1983.] (2) Interest for delayed payment of Retirement/Death Gratuity to be at the rate applicable to GPF deposits.-
1. It has been decided that where the payment of DCRG has been delayed beyond three months from the date of retirement, an interest at the rate applicable to GPF deposits will be paid to retired/dependents of deceased Government servants.
2. The Administrative Ministries are requested to ensure that in all cases where interest has to be paid on Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity because of administrative delay, action should be taken against the officer responsible for the delay.
5. (a) The rate of interest mentioned in para. 1 above will be applicable in all cases where the DCRG has not been paid as on date of issue of this OM.
6. All existing instructions relating to interest rate payable by the Government or the employees, as the case may be, will cease to operate with effect from the date of issue of this OM.
[G.I., Dept. of P. & P.W., O.M. No. F.7/I/93-P. & P.W. (F), dated the 25th August, 1994.- Paras. 1, 2, 5(a) and 6.1]
9. A perusal of the above decisions makes it clear that applicant is entitled to interest on delayed payment of gratuity which was withheld at the time of retirement on the plea that criminal case was pending against him in which the applicant has now been acquitted. Once, he has already been acquitted, therefore, in terms of aforementioned decision given below Rule 68 of the 1972 Rules, the gratuity becomes due from actual on his retirement. Since, withholding of amount of gratuity have been paid now on 27.02.2015, therefore, the applicant become entitled for award of interest @ 7% p.a. from the date it becomes due.
10. It is settled law of land that interest is compensatory in character and can be recovered for withholding the payment of any amount when it is due and payable. It is different from penalty and tantamount to compensation as the person entitled for recovery has been deprived of the right to use the said amount as held by the Constitution Bench of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Irrigation Departmnet Government of Orisssa & Ors. Vs. G.C. Roay, AIR 1992 SC 732.
11. Similar view was taken in the case of Union of India Vs. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, 1994 (2) SCC 240, where the Honble Supreme Court has held that Once it is established that an amount legally due to a party was not paid to it, the party responsible for withholding the same must pay interest at a rate considered reasonable by the Court. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the High Court's order directing payment of interest at 12% per annum on the balance of the death-cum-retirement gratuity which was delayed by almost a year.
12. In the case of S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana, 2008 (3) SCC 44, the Honble Apex Court has held that If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of bounty is, in our opinion, well-founded and needs no authority in support thereof.
13. Our own Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rajinder Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. , O.A No. 1033-CH-2012, decided on 05.03.2013 has held that if amount belonging to an employee/pensioner is withheld by the department without any lawful reason by the department, then the respondent authorities are liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum to make good the loss suffered by him due to non use of money belonging to him.
14. This Tribunal in O.A No. 060/00870/2014-H.R. Bangar Vs. Union of India & Ors., decided on 13.03.2015 has taken the same view.
15. In the light of the above, impugned order rejecting the applicants claim qua interest on delayed payment of gratuity is hereby by quashed and set aside. O.A is allowed with a direction to the respondents to award interest @ 7 % p.a on the delayed payment of gratuity from the date when it became due i.e. after three months after date of retirement on 31.03.1997 till it has actual been paid to the applicant, expeditiously.
16. No costs.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) Dated: 22.02.2017 `jk 1 OA No. 060/00422/2016