Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

M.G.Goel vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 18 July, 2013

Author: Pradeep Nandrajog

Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog, V.Kameswar Rao

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of Decision: July 18, 2013

+                           W.P.(C) 1125/2007

       M.G.GOEL                                          .....Petitioner
                       Represented by:   Mr.T.D.Yadav, Advocate

                                    versus

       GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                        .....Respondents
                Represented by: None

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The petitioner joined service as a Junior Auditor on July 01, 1959 and superannuated on October 30, 1994 while holding the post of a Superintendent Grade-I (DASS Cadre). Unfortunately for him, three days prior to the date of superannuation disciplinary proceedings were contemplated in view of the Anti Corruption Branch investigating a matter in which petitioner came under a cloud and in respect of which later on FIR No.5/95 was registered. To the misfortune of the petitioner investigation continued by the Anti Corruption Branch till October, 2001 and no involvement of the petitioner being found, a letter was written by the Anti Corruption Branch on October 05, 2001 that the matter was closed.

2. In that view of the matter a provisional pension was sanctioned to the petitioner as envisaged by Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

3. Concededly the provisional pension sanctioned was equal to 100% of the pension which the petitioner would otherwise receive. In other words from the month November, 1994 petitioner started receiving full pension.

4. Benefits such as gratuity and leave encashment were withheld but were paid belatedly after the matter was dropped and we note that pertaining to said amounts the Tribunal has directed petitioner to be paid interest @ 12% per annum from the date the two amounts became due and the date when payment was made. The petitioner informs us that he had received said interest.

5. Issue concerned in the present writ petition is the denial by the Tribunal for petitioner to be paid interest on the commuted portion of the pension.

6. No reasons have been given by the Tribunal to deny interest on late payment of the commuted portion of the pension while simultaneously directing interest to be paid on the delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment.

7. As per the petitioner he was entitled to 1/3rd pension being commuted and receive the amount of `51,840/- on November 01, 1994 i.e. the next day when he retired. He received `40,393/- on November 18, 2002 and the balance on October 31, 2012. Thus, petitioner claims interest for 8 years @ 12% per annum from November 01, 1994 till November 18, 2002 on the commuted pension i.e. `51,840/-. He also claims interest in sum of `13,736/- on the shortfall of the commuted pension which was paid to him on October 31, 2012.

8. At first blush the argument advanced seems to be sound, but a deeper look at the matter would reveal the hollowness of the claim.

9. As we have noted above, the provisional pension sanction for the petitioner was full pension. Thus, after he superannuated from service and till commuted value of the pension was paid to the petitioner he continued to receive full pension. If pension had been commuted at the very beginning the petitioner would have received 2/3 rd pension because 1/3rd would have been commuted. But receiving full pension for 8 years petitioner started receiving lesser pension because he got 1/3rd commuted. If we were to direct the department to pay interest on the commuted value of the pension we would be required to call upon the petitioner to refund that part of the full pension which he continued to receive which was in excess of what he would have received upon commutation and simultaneously pay interest thereon.

10. We illustrate.

11. Monthly pension to be received by 'A' as on January 01, 2000 onwards per month is `100/-. 'A' is entitled to 30% pension being commuted i.e. `30/-. The period for which the pension is commuted is 15 years. The commuted value of the commuted pension would be `30 x 12 x 15 = `5400/-. This would be received by 'A' on January 01, 2000. But for the next 15 years, upon the supposition that the pension remains static, he would receive `70/- per month. If 'A' receives full pension for say 5 years due to some dispute, he would have received `30 x 12 x 5 = `1800/- in excess. After 5 years he receives the commuted pension of `5400/- and thereafter he would be receiving pension for the next 10 years which would be `70/- per month. Thus, a delayed commutation of pension is offset by the full amount of pension received till it was commuted.

12. We dismiss the writ petition but without any order as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE JULY 18, 2013 skb W.P.(C) No.1125/2007 Page 4 of 4