Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raj Pal Singh vs Union Of India on 25 March, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI.
O.A. No. 1223/2008
New Delhi this the 25th day of March, 2009
HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J)
Raj Pal Singh
S/o Late Shir Behari Singh
Aged about 63 years
R/o 533 Varun Apartment,
C-58/28 Sector 62 Noida District
Gautam Budh Nagar (UP). Applicant
By Advocate: Applicant in person.
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Director CBI/CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
3. Senior Accounts Officer
Pay and Accounts Officer,
CBI Ist Floor,
A Wing, AGCR Building,
New Delhi-110 002.
4. SP/CBI/STF New Delhi
CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
5. Senior Accounts Officers,
Central Pension Accounting Office,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
Trikoota-II Complex, Bhikaji Kama Palace,
New Delhi. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri H.K. Gangwani.
ORDER
By this O.A. applicant has sought direction to the respondents to pay interest @ 24% on Rs.25611/-, Rs.1,87,360/- on account of retirement gratuity on Rs.4,66,643/- on account of commutation of pension and on Rs.21,060/- on account of leave encashment w.e.f. 1.8.2005 till February, 2008.
2. He has also prayed that respondents be directed to pay Rs.36,610/- on account of commutation of pension as same has not been paid till date along with interest @ 24% and also pay difference of pension amount of Rs.466/- with D.A. with effect from 1.8.2005 till date along with interest @ 24%.
3. It is submitted by the applicant that he retired on 31.7.2005 when he was getting Rs.16,700/- as basic pay. However arbitrarily his basic pay was re-fixed as Rs.15,500/- vide order dated 25.7.2005 just few days before his retirement and recoveries were made from his gratuity on account of overpayments, without putting him on notice. Being aggrieved, he filed O.As. No. 1686/2005 and 1007/2006. It was only during contempt proceedings that respondents admitted applicants basic pay as Rs.12,275/- as on 1.1.1996 as Senior Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to SPP) and basic pay of Additional Law Assistant (hereinafter referred to as ALA) as Rs.16,700/- as on 31.7.2005, i.e., the date of his superannuation.
4. Finally applicant was given following amounts on dates as mentioned below:-
Sl No. Date On account of Amount in Rs. Cheque No.
1. May 2008 Leave encashment Rs.21060 + Rs.10020 = Rs.31080 827981 198854 on 7.4.2008
2. 12.1.2007 Gratuity Rs.212971 Paid vide cheque dated 12.1.2007
3. 29.1.2008 Gratuity Rs.1,87,360 Vide cheque No.82730
4. Commuted Value of Pension Rs.4,66,642 Paid vide cheque No.820914
5. Rs.36,610/- not still paid Similarly difference of pension Rs.466/- with D.A. amount from 1.8.2005 till date has not been paid so far, therefore, he is entitled to get interest on the above said amounts.
5. He has thus prayed that O.A. may be allowed. He has relied on the judgments of Sone Lal Vs. U.O.I. and Another (OA No. 1769/1999) decided on 26.6.2000( page 15), R. Kapur Vs. Directorate of Inspection reported in JT 1994 (6) SC 354 and A. Jithendernath Vs. Jubilee Hills Coop. House Building Society and Another reported in 2006 (10) SCC 96.
6. Respondents have opposed this OA. They have submitted that since applicant was to retire on 31.7.2005 his pension papers were sent to the Sr. Accounts Officer, Pay and Accounts Office vide letter dated 11.7.2005 but the papers were returned back with the remark that his pay fixation as on 1.1.1996 was not in order with a direction to resubmit the papers after refixing the pay and effecting recoveries of over payments. Accordingly, applicants pay was refixed and conveyed to the applicant vide letter dated 25.7.2005.
7. At this stage applicant himself gave in writing on 27.7.2005 to stop process of pension till the matter is decided by the Head Office.
8. The matter was referred to DOP&T who in turn referred it to the Internal Finance Division of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). They clarified vide letter dated 21.7.2005 that pay fixation of applicant is in order. In view of above the bills were sent to the PAO on 28.9.2005. The Pension Payment Order (hereinafter referred to as PPO) was issued on 3.10.2005 but applicant refused to take the cheques dated 21.4.2006 for Rs.25,611/- on account of gratuity issued after effecting the recoveries and cheque dated 21.4.2006 for Rs.4,66,643/- on account of commutation of pension in spite of letter dated 12.6.2006 written to the applicant to collect the cheques otherwise cheques would be deposited in Government Treasury (page 66). Accordingly, vide letter dated 18.7.2006 the above said cheques were deposited in Government Treasury after getting them cancelled (page 68).
9. Against the re-fixation of his pay and recovery, applicant had filed O.A. No. 1786/2005 which was partly allowed on 21.2.2005. Order of re-fixation was quashed but liberty was given to the respondents to take action after following due process of law. In the meantime respondents were directed to release his retrial benefits (page 70 at 72). Pursuant to it show cause notice dated 15.2.2006 was issued to the applicant and speaking order was issued on 5.4.2006. At this stage applicant filed 2nd O.A. 1007/2006 seeking direction to the respondents to make the payment of retirement benefits as per the last pay drawn by him on 29.7.2005 and not to make recovery of over payment, if any. During the pendency of this O.A. when matter was reexamined, the Principal Accounts Office intimated that the pay fixation of Shri Saxena as on 1.1.1996 is in order and since pay fixation of Shri Rajpal Singh is similar to Shri S.K. Saxena, his case may also be revised and concerned office may be asked to submit the revised pension case for settlement. The 2nd O.A. was accordingly disposed off on 7.7.2007 by giving direction to the respondents that in the event the applicant submits his detailed representation with regard to correct fixation, the same would be considered by the respondents within a period of three months. The Honble Tribunal had also directed that while deciding the representation of applicant, the directions of the Tribunal insofar as similar treatment to Shri S.K. Saxena should also be kept in mind.
10. The matter was, therefore, again referred to DOP&T who vide their letter dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure R-21) intimated that since the pay fixation cases of both the officers are identical, CBI may take action to fix the pay of applicant at par with Shri S.K. Saxena in accordance with the advice of Pay and Accounts Office, CBI.
11. In view of above, pay of applicant was correctly fixed at Rs.12,275/- w.e.f 1.1.1996 vide order dated 4.1.2008. His pension was recalculated and revised PPO was issued on 21.1.2008 and the bills for issuing the cheque of arrears of retirement dues, i.e. gratuity, commutation value and leave encashment were sent to the Pay and Accounts Office, who issued cheques for Rs.25,611/- dated 15.1.2008, Rs.1,87,360/- dated 29.1.2008 both towards gratuity, Rs.4,66,643/- dated 15.1.2008 towards commutation value of pension and Rs.21,060/- dated Nil towards difference of leave encashment. The above cheques were sent to the applicant on 17.1.2008 but he did not receive the same on one pretext or the other. He was again requested vide letter dated 4.2.2008 to collect the cheques from the office but he did not turn up to collect the same.
12. On the contrary, he filed Contempt Petition. These facts were explained and all the four cheques were produced before the Honble Court. The applicant agreed to accept the said cheques only on the directions of Honble Court. Accordingly all the cheques of retirement dues were handed over to the applicant on 11.2.2008 in the court itself. In view of above, Contempt Petition was closed by the Honble Tribunal vide order dated 11.2.2008.
13. They have further explained that leave encashment of Rs.2,72,030/- was already paid vide Cheque No.685411 dated 20.9.2005. Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- amount was admissible after effecting recovery of HBA/interest of Rs.1,36,029/- and on account of overpayment of salary of Rs.1,87,360/-, balance of Rs.25,611/- was released/paid to him vide Cheque No.826913 dated 15.1.2008 after revalidating earlier Cheque No.A-810545 dated 21.4.2006. Commuted value of Rs.4,66,643/- was released/paid to him vide Cheque No.826914 dated 15.1.2008 after revalidating his earlier Cheque No. 810546 dated 21.4.2006. Pension @ Rs.5947/- was already being paid by the bank on monthly basis to the applicant. However, pursuant to the order of Honble CAT in OA No. 1007/2006, the pay fixation of the applicant was revised, as such revised PPO was issued by the Pay and Accounts Office, CBI vide letter dated 21.1.2008, (Annexure R-24) and payment of difference in amount of retirement dues were paid to the applicant as under:-
(i) Gratuity Out of total admissible amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, an amount of Rs.25,611/- was already paid, as mentioned at Sl.No.2 above and the balance of Rs.1,87,360/- was paid to the applicant vide Cheque No.A-827301 dated 29.1.2008.
(ii) Difference of commuted value of pension amounting to Rs. 36,610/- is to be paid by the bank.
(iii) Difference of leave encashment of Rs.21,060/- has been paid to the applicant vide Cheque No.827381 dated 29.1.2008.
(iv) Difference of pension to be paid by the Bank.
14. In view of above, they have stated applicant is not entitled to any interest, therefore, OA may be dismissed.
15. I have heard applicant, who appeared in person as well as counsel for the respondents and have perused the pleadings as well.
16. Perusal of the records show that applicant had retired on 31.7.2005, he was issued the PPO dated 5.10.2005 (page 65) whereby his gross pension was fixed at Rs.9911/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.8.2005 commuted pension Rs.3964/- and balance pension was fixed as Rs.5947/-. Apart from it 2 cheques dated 21.4.2006 were also issued for an amount of Rs.25611/- on account of gratuity and Rs.4, 66, 643/- on account of commutation of pension. Both these cheques ought to have been released within 3 months from the date of applicants retirement in normal course but in the instant case even after these cheques were issued, applicant refused to accept these cheques which is evident from letter dated 12.6.2006 (page 66). Vide this letter applicant was informed that in spite of visiting the office he has not collected the above cheques. He was again requested to collect the cheques by 23.6.2006 failing which cheques will be deposited in treasury. In spite of it applicant did not collect the cheques, therefore, vide letter dated 18.7.2006, Superintendent of Police requested the Sr. Accounts Officer to cancel the said cheques and deposit in the Government Treasury (page 68).
17. Since these two cheques were offered but not taken by the applicant, applicant would not be entitled to claim interest on these amounts. Applicant could have accepted these cheques under protest and then pursued his grievance. I would, however, agree with the applicant that his pay was wrongly re-fixed immediately before his retirement on 21.7.2005 that too without putting him on notice. It was only after applicant knocked the doors of the court that his pay was correctly fixed at R.11,950/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and at Rs.16700/- as on 31.7.2005 but it was fixed on 4.1.2008, i.e. after about 2.1/2 years after his retirement. It was at this stage that the revised PPO was issued by the respondents on 14.2.2008 (page 24) whereby his basic pension was fixed at Rs.10,688/- w.e.f. 1.8.2005 revised commuted pension was fixed at Rs.4275/- and reduced pension was fixed at Rs.6413/- meaning thereby that the stand of applicant stood vindicated, therefore, applicant would be entitled to get interest @ 9% on the difference of amount on account of reduced pension w.e.f. 1.5.2008 till it is paid to the applicant. 18. It is relevant to note that vide letter dated 17.1.2008 applicant was requested to collect the cheque for Rs.25611 + Rs.4,66,643 as other amounts are being processed but applicant did not collect the cheques. In view of revised PPO, the respondents again requested the applicant to collect the following cheques vide letter dated 4.2.2008 (page 25) as under:
Retirement Gratuity of Rs.3,50,000/-
Total amount of Retirement Gratuity Rs.3,50,000 (-) Interest on HBA -Rs.136,029 (-) withheld amount of Gratuity -Rs.1000 Net payable vide Cheque No. No.826913 dated 15.1.2007 of Rs.25611 & Cheque No. 827301 dated 29.1.2008 of Rs.1,87,360/- Total= Rs,212971 Rs.2,12,971/-
Commuted Value of Pension Amount payable by Cheque No.826914 dated 15.1.2008 Rs.466643 Difference amount of Commuted Value of Pension payable by the Bank as per revised PPO issued by PAO/CBI. Rs.36610 Total Rs.503253 Leave Encashment of Rs. 2,93,090/-
Total Amount of Leave Encashment Rs.293090 (-) Amount already paid on 21.9.2005 vide Cheque No.685411 dated 20.9.2005 as encashment of leave -Rs.272,030 Difference amount payable vide Cheque No.827381 dated Nil of Rs.21060 Rs.21060 But again applicant did not accept the cheques. It was only in court that applicant accepted the cheques on 11.2.2009 on directions of the Tribunal, therefore, applicant is also partly responsible as he refused to accept the cheques even after they were offered to the applicant. None the less the fact remains that an amount of Rs,187,360/- was withheld from applicants gratuity by the respondents without any valid justification and without following due process of law.
19. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that applicant would be entitled to get interest @ rate admissible on GPF on the amount of Rs.1,87,360/- on account of gratuity w.e.f. Ist November, 2005 till 28.1.2008, i.e., date when cheque was prepared for the said amount because this amount was wrongly adjusted by the respondents from applicants gratuity by showing it as overpayment due to refixation of applicants pay whereas ultimately respondents themselves corrected the pay of applicant as was claimed by him. Applicant would not be entitled to get interest on Rs.25,611/- as it was offered to him after retirement but he refused to take it
20. As far as commutation of pension is concerned, admittedly applicant was offered the amount of Rs.4,66,643/- after his retirement but he refused to take it. Moreover, applicant was receiving the pension every month though lessor than what has been sanctioned in the revised PPO, therefore, applicant would not be entitled to get any interest on this amount. Difference of commuted value of pension to the tune of Rs. 36, 610 /- is stated to have been paid by the bank. On this amount no interest is payable as it has been clarified by Government of Indias instructions dated 5.10.1999 as under:-
2. As per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, no interest is payable on delayed payment of pensions/commuted value of pension. However, the above recommendation of the Committee on delayed payment of retirement dues has been examined in this Department in consultation with Department of Personnel and Training and Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance and it has been decided to implement the recommendation as detailed below:-
(a) All pensioners dues are to be settled strictly following the procedures laid down in Rules 56 to 76 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
(b) Wherever delays are anticipated, provisional pension should be sanctioned immediately.
In the instant case applicant was already getting pension as fixed in the Ist PPO, therefore, his case would be covered by above instructions. As far as leave encashment is concerned it has again been clarified by the same instructions as follows:-
(f) In the matter of delayed payment of leave encashment, the Department of Personnel and Training in their note, dated 2.8.1999 has clarified that there is no provision under CCS (Leave) Rules for payment of interest or for fixing responsibility. Moreover, encashment of leave is a benefit granted under the leave rules and not a pensionary benefit.
In any case leave encashment to the tune of Rs.2,72,230/- was already paid to the applicant on 21.9.2005 vide cheque dated 20.9.2005 and it is only difference of Rs.22060/- which has been paid to the applicant on 11.2.2008, therefore, no interest would be payable on this amount.
21. I, however, feel that applicant has been dragged to the court unnecessarily by the respondents by fixing his pay wrongly immediately before his retirement, that too without putting him on notice and has been paid major part of his gratuity only after he filed cases before the Tribunal after a long delay which is totally attributable to the respondents as they had wrongly fixed his pay at the time of retirement, therefore, this is a fit case which should be partly allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/- in favour of applicant. Accordingly OA is partly allowed in terms of directions given in para 17 and 18 above along with cost of Rs.5000/- in favour of applicant.
(MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER) MEMBER (J) Rakesh