Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jagdish Kumar vs Union Of India Through on 30 November, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench O.A.No.948/2011 New Delhi, this the 30th day of November, 2011 Honble Shri Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Jagdish Kumar r/o Block H-3, House No.98 Vikas Puri New Delhi 110 018. Applicant (Applicant in person) Versus Union of India Through The Secretary Department of Telecommunication Sanchar Bhawan New Delhi 110 001. The Secretary Department of Pension & PW Lok Nayak Bhawan New Delhi 110 003. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Subhash Gosai) O R D E R
1.1. The grievance of the applicant, in this OA, is that consequent upon the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations, issued vide notification dated 2.09.2008, the payment of his revised pension and other retirement dues were delayed by the respondents. The present OA has been filed to claim interest on the said delayed payments.
1.2. This is the second round of litigation. The earlier OA No.2630/2010, filed by the applicant in this regard, had been disposed of by this Tribunal, vide order dated 12.08.2010, by directing the respondents, without going into the merits of the case, to consider the applicants case for grant of interest on delayed payment by treating the OA as an additional representation of the applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order on the claim of the applicant within a stipulated period. In compliance thereof, the respondents have passed a detailed order dated 11.11.2010, rejecting the claim of the applicant for accord of interest on the delayed payment of arrears of 6th Central Pay Commission, namely, gratuity, commuted value of pension, leave encashment and 40% and 60% of arrears of pension. The present OA challenges the order dated 11.11.2010 and seeks the following specific reliefs:
to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.11.2010.
to direct the respondents to make payment of interest at the rate prescribed in the Pension Rules on arrears of gratuity and at the rate of 18% p.a. on revised pension, arrears of revised pension, commuted value of pension, and leave salary, from the date the payments became due till the date of actual payment.
2. The brief facts of the case, as are relevant, are that the applicant retired on superannuation from the Department of Telecommunication as Director w.e.f. 31.08.2007. He was paid commutation value of pension, DCRG and encashment of leave on 31.08.2007 itself and the order for other dues such as GPF, Group Insurance and Pension were issued within one month of his retirement.
2.2. The Government of India issued orders for implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission for post-2006 pensioners/retiring employees vide DOP&PW OM dated 02.09.2008. In terms of these orders, the applicant was required to submit his option form/ undertaking/option for commuting the additional amount of pension. The applicant submitted his option on 17.09.2008. Thereafter, the order for payment of arrears of gratuity was issued on 19.01.2009. It is stated that the respondents have paid the applicants retirement dues on the dates indicated hereunder:
Payment on account of Date of payment Arrears of leave salary 04.01.2009 Arrears of gratuity and commuted value of pension 27.01.2009 Arrears of revised pension from 01.09.2007 to 31.08.2008
-40% as well as 60% 27.10.2009 Arrears of revised pension from 01.09.2008 to 30.06.2009 27.10.2009 The applicant made a representation to Respondent No.1 on 27.01.2009 claiming interest on the delayed payment of his arrears of gratuity as per Rule 68 of the Pension Rules and Government of Indias decision dated 22.01.1991 (Annexure A3) but the respondents have rejected the claim vide order dated 23/25th November, 2009 and 5.04.2010. Aggrieved by this, the applicant filed OA No.2630/2010 which was disposed of on 12.08.2010, as already referred to above, with certain directions. In compliance thereof, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 11.11.2010.
3. The main grounds on which the reliefs mentioned in para 1 are sought are as under:
that the respondents statutory liability to pay the applicants revised retirement dues commenced with the order of acceptance of the Sixth CPC decision, and modification of the Pension Rules, on 02.09.2008 and stood fully discharged on payment of revised retirement dues only on 27.10.2009.
that for any delay in settlement and disbursement of retirement dues of pension/gratuity, interest is required to be paid as per rules, and further that even if the rules do not stipulate payment of interest for delayed payment of any retirement dues, the respondents should be asked to pay interest to the applicant for the delay in payment of all retirement dues viz. revised pension, arrears of revised pension, commuted value of pension, gratuity and leave salary. In this connection, the applicant has relied on the Judgements of the Honble Apex Court in State of Kerala and Ors. v. M. Padmanabhan, AIR 1985 SC 356 and S.K.Dua v. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44.
4.1. The respondents have opposed the OA and have stated that there is no provision which attributes any legally enforceable right in favour of the applicant in any manner. It is further stated that the applicant does not fall under the purview of guidelines provided for determining delay in payment of gratuity as per Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. He retired on superannuation on 31.08.2007 from DOT as Director and there is no provision for payment of interest on delayed payment of commuted value of pension as per CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981. It is also stated that there is no willful or malafide intention on the part of the respondents against the applicant in any manner, and the unreasonable grievance of the applicant has already been answered vide impugned order dated 11.11.2010.
4.2. Further, in the counter, they have also detailed various stages of the processing of the pension case of the applicant, namely, that after the Government of India issued orders for implementation of 6th CPC for post-2006 pensioners/retiring employees vide DoP&PW OM dated 02.09.2008 and, on receipt of his option, Administration-I Section of Respondent No.1 fixed his pay on 30.09.2008 vide Memorandum dated 30.09.2008. On the basis of this pay fixation order, the revised pension calculation sheet, revising pension/family pension as well as pensionary benefits were prepared and sent to A.O (PFP), DOT for revising the same on 06.11.2008. PFP Section returned the pension revision case of the applicant to pension Section on 19.11.2008 for pre-check as directed in para 4 of the Department of Expenditures OM dated 30.08.2008. It is further submitted that 16 service books including the service book of the applicant were furnished to Administration-I Section for pre-checking the pay fixation memo, as per Department of Expenditures OM dated 30.08.2008. The service book and pay fixation memo in respect of the applicant was received back in Pension Section on 24.11.2008 after necessary pre-check by Finance Branch of DOT for revising his PPO and all his other dues. It is further submitted that after that, PFP Section prepared sanctions for the difference of commutation (additional amount of commutation) & difference of gratuity vide no.PFP/DOT/MOC/478/2007/24 dated 10.12.2008 and no.PFP/DOT/MOC/478/2007/23 dated 10.12.2008.
4.3. It is also submitted that `implementation of 6th CPC work involved tremendous work load as it entailed calling for service books and records of the pension cases from different sections and all the cases were to be attended to promptly so that they could be settled expeditiously but also with due diligence. Further, after the 6th CPC notification, a number of clarifications were issued by DoP&PW on different dates (the last clarification from DoP&PW on revision of pension was received on 11.12.2008) and these had to be taken into consideration while revising pay and other retiral dues of ex-employees, and this also caused some delay in settling the cases. However, the case of the applicant was settled within three months of the clarification dated 11.12.2008.
4.4. It is further submitted that the applicant represented to the Secretary, DOT vide his letter dated 13.10.2009 for payment of interest on gratuity at the rate prescribed in the pension rules and at the rate of 18% per annum on arrears of commuted value of pension and revised pension from 01.09.2008 to 30.06.2009. His request was not acceded to and he was informed accordingly on 25.11.2009. He then made another representation dated 07.01.2010 to the Secretary (T), DOT and but the representation of the applicant was again turned down and he was informed of the same on 05.04.2010. The case of the applicant was also referred to DOP&PW, who clarified that there is no provision for payment of interest on delayed payment of commuted value of pension under CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 and further that they had issued no guidelines/specific orders in respect of interest on delayed payment of arrears of gratuity on implementation of 6th CPC decision and that interest on arrears of gratuity consequent upon 6th CPC had not been sanctioned in DOT so far in any cases in the past. The case of the applicant was again examined in compliance of the directions passed by this Tribunal vide its order dated 12.08.2010 in O.A.No.2630/2010, and accordingly, the applicant was communicated vide impugned order dated 11.11.2010, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:
3. As per the direction of the Honble CAT (PB), New Delhi in the above OA [OA No.2630/2010], the case has been examined by this office and your claim is hereby rejected on the following grounds:-
Government of India issued Notification of 6th CPC introducing CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 on 30.08.2008. Subsequent to the notification of 6th CPC, DoP&PW vide DoP&PWs OM No.38/37/2008-P&PW(A) dated 02.09.2008 issued an order for implementing 6th CPC decision for post-2006 pensioners/retiring employees. This has been followed by a number of clarification on different dates.
As per revised CCS (RP) Rules 2008 your pay was revised on 30.09.2008. Based on this pay fixation order and your option dated 17.09.2008 orders regarding additional amount of Gratuity and Commutation were issued on 10.12.2008 (a copy each of the same are enclosed). In the meantime DoP&PW issued a clarification No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) on 11.12.2008 extending benefits of full pension (50% of emoluments last drawn) in respect of the pensioners who retired between the period from 01.01.2006 to 02.09.2008. On receipt of the above clarification, your pensionary benefit case needed to be revised again canceling the earlier issued orders since it is more beneficial to you. Final sanction for payment of additional gratuity, commutation, retirement were issued on 19.01.2009.
In case, your pension had been revised without considering the facts of the clarification dated 11.12.2008 of DoP&PW, you would have received revised pensionary benefits within the stipulated time of three months. But you would have received less pension than the amount you are actually getting now. As such, your claim for interest from an earlier period is not justifiable. Consequent upon the implementation of the 6th CPC, cases regarding revision of emoluments, pension/family pension and pensionary benefits etc in respect of pre-2006 and Post-2006 pensioners/family pensioners were received in bulk from employees/pensioners numbering more than 1000. The records of the pension cases had to be called from different administrative sections and they were to be done with due diligence. After the declaration of the 6th CPC a number of clarifications were issued by DoP&PW on different dates which also caused delay in setting the cases. Regular pension cases were also to be settled in addition to the work of pension revision of pensioners. There was never any intention on the part of DOT to delay in settling the cases. The delay, if any, was not willful but on account of administrative reasons.
As per records of your case, the additional Retirement Gratuity and Commutation value of pension were sanctioned to you on 19.01.2009. The arrear on Leave encashment was also paid to you on 19,.12.2008. All the above mentioned payments were made within 3 months of the clarification No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dt. 11.12.2008 issued by Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare. Hence all the payments were made to you within the time frame stipulated by DoP&PW in their OM No.7/20/89 P&PW (F) dated 22.01.1991. Thus, there was no undue delay in authorization/payment of additional gratuity, commutation value and leave encashment accruing to you due to 6th CPC.
Moreover, DoP&PW has also not issued either any guidelines or any specific orders for payment of interest on delayed payment of arrears of gratuity, additional commutation value of pension and leave encashment on implementation of 6th CPC.
4. In view of the above facts and grounds, it is intimated that your claim for interest cannot be acceded to. This is in compliance of the order dated 12.08.2010 of the Honble CAT (PB) New Delhi in OA No.2630/2010.
5. The respondents were directed to file an affidavit/written submissions vide our order dated 18.10.2011, giving the following specific information:
a) The stages of processing, that each of the four payments (made to the applicant) went through and particularly with regard to authorization of arrears of revised pension;
b) The dates on which the amounts were calculated;
c) the dates of the revised PPO issued and;
d) the dates of intimation sent to the bank.
5.1. In their written statement filed on 09.11.2011, the respondents have reiterated what has already been stated in the counter and have stated as under:
That the applicant had retired on 31.08.2007 and all his retiral dues were paid to him either on the date of his retirement or within one week thereafter.
That the work of authorization of the arrears/revisions arising out of the implementation of the 6th CPCs recommendations, involved heavy work load due to the large number of cases which had to be disposed of expeditiously after due diligence and as a large number of clarificatory orders were issued in the matter.
5.2. It is stated that the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted by the Government and implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Based on that an Office Memorandum was issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare on 02.09.2008, and as per 5.4 of this OM, the revised provision for calculation of pension at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee, came into force with effect from the date of issue of the OM and is applicable to Government servants retiring on or after that date. The government servants who have retired on or after 1.1.2006 but before the date of issue of this OM will continue to be governed by the Rules/orders which were in force immediately before coming into effect of these orders. Similarly, as per para 9.3 of the said OM dated 2.11.2008, the revised Table of Commutation value of pension is used for all commutations of pension which became absolute after the date of issue of the OM. It is further stated that after the said OM was issued, the applicant had submitted his option for revision of pay and commutation value of additional pension on 17.09.2008 and accordingly, the respondents had prepared Cheques for Rs.568671/- towards additional amount of gratuity and for Rs.4,76,596/- towards additional amount of commuted value of pension, but on 11.12.2008 the DoP&PW issued the OM wherein it was decided by the Government that the provision for payment of pension at 50% of emoluments (Pay last drawn) or 50% of average emoluments received during the last ten months, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee, would be applicable to all Government servants retiring on or after 01.01.2006, and accordingly a revised PPO was issued on 2.04.2009 and was sent to the Central Pension Accounting Office; thereafter the CPAO issued authorization to the bank of the applicant for payment of the revised pension on 20.06.2009.
The respondents, in their written statement, have furnished the following table showing the dates of payments of dues made to the applicant:
1. PFP/DOT/MOC/478/2007/24 dated 19.01.2009 Additional Commuted Value of Pension 500097 Additional amount of Gratuity & additional amount of Commuted Value of Pension totaling Rs.1068768 paid to the petitioner on 27.1.09 vide cheque No.003492 dated 27.1.2009
2. PFP/DOT/MOC/478/2007/24 dated 19.01.2009 Additional Retirement gratuity 568671 This amount is included in the above mentioned cheque No.003492 dated 27.1.2009
3. No.17-1/2008 Admn.1 dated 19.12.2008 Arrears of leave encashment 210490 Amount paid on 29.12.08 vide cheque No.003005 dated 29.12.2008.
4. Revised PPO No.771010700221 dated 02.04.2009 Basic Pension 25549 Reduced Pension Rs.15324 5.3. It is also stated that the applicant had himself handed over the said OM of 11.12.2008 to the respondents and although he was told that he could collect the cheques already prepared from the Cash Branch, he insisted on calculation of his revised pensionary dues as per the revised order dated 11.12.2008; therefore, the earlier orders for revised amount of gratuity and additional amount of commuted value of pension were withdrawn from Cash Branch and the same were cancelled.
5.4. The respondents have again reiterated that the department has constantly been taking steps to ensure earliest authorization after due diligence. They have accepted that there has been some delay in issue of revised PPO and authorization for payment of revised pension to the concerned bank by the CPAO but this delay can be attributed to the heavy rush of 6th CPC related work and was not intentional. They have further stated that there is no provision for payment of interest on delayed payment of arrears of leave encashment, gratuity, additional commutation value of pension and revised pension on account of revision of emoluments/liberalization of rules as the retiral benefits to the employee already stand paid earlier, and payment of arrears on these accounts becomes due because of retrospective effect given to the recommendations of the 6th CPC by the Government.
6. We have heard the applicant in person and also the learned counsel for the respondents and have been through the pleadings on record, including the written submissions filed by both the parties.
6.1. The issue involved in the present case is in a narrow campus: whether an individual Government servant after having served the Government for several years should be entitled in the fall of his life to interest on any delay which is not attributable to him in payment of dues that he has legally become entitled to on revision of pension/resultant dues (such as gratuity, commutation of pension, leave encashment, etc.) on the basis of the recommendations of the Pay Commission duly accepted and notified for payment.
6.2.1. It will be useful in this connection to refer to some legal pronouncements on this issue:
In D.S.Nakara & Others Vs. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130, the Honble Apex Court held that Pension and Gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government, to its employees on their retirement but have become under the decision of the Court valuable right vested in a Government servant and any delay in the disbursement, the payment should be made alongwith penalty of interest at current rate till the actual payment is made. In State of Kerala and Others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429, their Lordships observed that 1. Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment.
. .
5. We are also of the view that the State Government is being rightly saddled with a .liability for the culpable neglect in the discharge of his duty by the District Treasury Officer who delayed the issuance of the LP.C, but since the concerned officer had not been impleaded as a party defendant to the suit the Court is unable to hold him liable for the decretal amount. It will however, be for the State Government to consider whether the erring official should or should not be directed to compensate the Government the loss sustained by it by his culpable lapses. Such action if taken would help generate in the officials of the State Government a sense of duty towards the Government under whom they serve as also a sense of accountability to members of the public. While dealing with admissibility of payment for interest for delay in respect of retiral dues, the Honble Supreme Court observed in the case of S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana and anr., JT 2008 (1) SC 331=(2008) 3 SCC 44, as follows:-
In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well-founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. 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. 6.2.2. The thrust of the above observations is that any delay (beyond a reasonable time) in disbursement of dues to a Government servant which has to be legally payable to him/her on his/her retirement should be visited with payment of interest at an appropriate rate of interest, provided the delay is not attributable to the Government servant. This is also the spirit behind the internal instructions issued by the Government vide OM dated 02.05.1994 which prescribed that the Heads of Departments/Offices were made accountable for strict compliance of Government orders for issuing authorization of Pension and Gratuity, provisional or final, at the date of retirement on superannuation, and is also the spirit behind the instructions further issued by Dept. of P&PW vide its OM dated 5.10.1999 which recommended as under:
(c) Any delay in processing of pension resulting in pension not being authorized on the last working day of retirement of the Government servant, should be reported by the Head of Office of the next higher authority who would watch the settlement of delayed cases. 6.2.3. The respondents have sought to make a distinction between two types of dues, namely,
(a) dues of pension and gratuity that are payable on retirement for which there is now a provision of payment of interest in the rules itself and
(b) dues such as leave encashment, etc. which are payable under the leave rules and may not strictly be treated as retirement dues, and for which there is no provision for payment of interest in the rules.
We are, however, not persuaded to accept such a facetious distinction. All the dues paid to a Government servant (the applicant in the OA) of pension or gratuity or leave encashment become payable to a Government servant on his superannuation and he is legally entitled to prompt payment of such dues, hence, such a distinction cannot be accepted.
Another distinction that is often sought to be introduced is between the dues payable on the retirement of a Government servant and dues that become payable to a retired Government servant as a result of revision of pension and other dues necessitated by the acceptance/implementation of the Pay Commissions recommendations, etc. This distinction also is an artificial distinction as the basic premise, on which interest is prescribed and paid on account of unreasonable delay on payment of pension and gratuity, is that the Government servant is legally entitled to these dues and. therefore, any culpable delay in disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest till the date of actual payment. This principle would apply whether dues involved are those that are payable immediately on retirement and those that became payable thereafter due to revisions necessitated by Government decisions from time to time.
6.3. The matter can be viewed from another angle. When a person is entitled to an amount at a given time as a matter of right, that entails a corresponding duty on the employer to pay that amount when it becomes due and payable. Failure to do so would result in breach of ones duty leading to infringement of the right of the person entitled to such a payment. The consequence of delay in payment is that the person is deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of the amount, whose payment is delayed, for no fault of his own and, therefore, in all fairness, the person ought to be duly compensated for such a deprivation. Payment of interest in such a case would essentially be by way of indemnification of the loss caused by the delay in payment of the amount due to the person entitled to it. That being so, it really does not matter whether there is any express enabling provision providing for the payment of such an interest. As a matter of fact, such interest is in the nature of indemnification for the loss suffered by a person on account of wrongful deprivation of legitimate dues, though for the limited period for which the payment of the due amount is delayed. Accordingly, award of interest in such cases would be justifiable to make good the loss caused by the payers inaction in making payment in time.
6.4.1. Before proceeding to deal with the present case, we may also briefly recapitulate the rule position in this regard.
The provisions of DoPTs OM dated 22.01.1991 under Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provide as under:
iv. Cases where the amount of gratuity already paid is enhanced on account of revision of emoluments or liberalization in the provisions relating to gratuity from a date prior to the date of retirement of the Government servant concerned At present, no interest is paid in such cases. Representations have been received that the payment of difference in gratuity in such cases is unduly delayed. It is expected that once the orders relating to revision of emoluments reckoning for gratuity or liberalization of rules relating to entitlement of gratuity is issued, the difference in gratuity should be paid within a reasonable time. Taking into account all aspects, it has now been decided that if the payment on account of arrears of gratuity is delayed beyond a period of three months from the date of issue of the orders revising the emoluments or liberalization in the rules, interest may be allowed for the delay beyond the period of three months from the date of issue of the said orders. A perusal of the above would reveal that whenever the amount of gratuity already paid has been enhanced on account of revision of emoluments, if the payment on account of arrears of gratuity is delayed beyond a period of three months from the date of issue of the orders revising the emoluments, interest would be allowed for the delay beyond the period of three months from the date of issue of the said orders.
6.4.2. Further, Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, referred to above, provides for interest on delayed payment of gratuity if the same is attributable to administrative reasons and such delay is not due to the fault of the Government servant. In the case of normal retirement, the maximum period allowed as being reasonable, as already prescribed, would be three months for processing of the pension/retirement dues, such as gratuity, commutation of pension, etc. of the each individual and for any delay beyond this period, Government has provided for payment of interest on such delayed payments. It is our considered view that this principle should be equally applicable in respect of all payments due to an officer on retirement, including payments arising due to revision of pension/pensionary benefits as a result of the implementation of the Pay Commissions recommendations. This is on the premise, that if the amounts towards the above retirement benefits are made available to a Government employee in time, he can gainfully invest the same and can earn some interest to supplement the sudden fall in his income after retirement. Further, a Government servant can use the amount for occasions such as marriage of his daughter/children (for which often a Government servant has to obtain loans, etc. at higher rates of interest). Therefore, any delay in payment of amounts legitimately due to him on retirement and on revision of pension, etc. necessitated by CPCs recommendations, would definitely affect him adversely. For any failure on this account, the applicant would need to be compensated by payment of interest at the GP Fund rate of interest.
6.5.1. In the above backdrop and the legal pronouncements, referred to hereinbefore, let us now examine the case of the applicant.
The applicant has, in his representation dated 07.01.2010, sought interest on the delayed payments made in his case, as listed below:
Sl.No. Payment on account of Due to be paid Paid on
i) Arrears of Gratuity Immediately after issue of orders dated 30.09.2008 determining revised emoluments 27.01.2009
ii) Arrears of leave salary Immediately after issue of orders dated 30.09.2008 determining revised emoluments. 04.01.2009
iii) Arrears of commuted value of pension Immediately after issue of sanction revised pension dated 04.11.2008 27.01.2009
iv) 100% arrears of revised pension from September, 2007 to August, 2008 40% arrears immediately after issue of sanction of revised pension dated 04.11.2008 and 60% arrears latest by 30.09.2009 27.10.2009
v) Regular monthly revised pension from September, 2008 to June, 2009. Immediately after issue of sanction of revised pension dated 04.11.2008. 27.10.2009 (payable monthly but paid as arrears) 6.5.2. We find in the present case that the following are the sequence of events in respect of the payment of gratuity and commutation of pension to the applicant:
a) the 6th CPC orders had been passed on 2.09.2008
b) the option had been given by the applicant on 17.09.2008 and
c) the PPO of the applicant had been prepared on 10.12.2008.
d) However, on 11.12.2008 the DoP&PW issued a clarification that the provision for payment of pension at 50% of emolument (Pay last drawn) or 50% of average emoluments received during the last ten months, whichever is more beneficial for the retiring employee shall be applicable to all Government servants retiring on or after 01.01.2006, subject to the maximum qualifying service of 33 years otherwise proportionate. Therefore, the respondents decided to revise the PPO dated 10.12.2008.
e) Thereafter, the final sanction for payment of additional gratuity and commutation of pension was issued on 19.01.2009 and the actual payment was made on 27.01.2009.
6.5.3. As already discussed above, the applicant would normally be entitled to interest for the period of delay in payment of gratuity beyond the reasonable time required for processing, which again (in keeping with DoPTs OM dated 22.01.1991 referred to in para 6.4.1 above) may be taken as 3 months. In the present case, the Government had issued the clarification order on 11.12.2008, and the payment had been made on 27.01.2009. Thus, the payment of gratuity and commuted value of pension should have been made within three months from 11.12.2008. Therefore, in our view, this Tribunals intervention is not warranted in regard to the items mentioned at Sl. No.(i) and (iii) above in Para-6.5.1, as payments were made within this period of three months.
As regards Sl.No.(ii) in Para 6.5.1 above [arrears of leave salary] also there is also no delay as the same had been paid to the applicant on 04.01.2009.
6.6. However, as regards Sl.Nos.(iv) and (v) of Para 6.5.1 above, namely, 100% arrears (40% + 60% arrears) immediately after issue of the Government orders and arrears of regular monthly revised pension from September, 2008 to June, 2009 respectively, it is noticed that the respective payments, amounting to Rs.2,10,569/- have been credited to the applicants bank account only on 27.10.2009. These payments are analyzed below:
Payment of 100 % arrears (40% + 60%):
The payment was due to be made in two parts. The applicant claims that these should have been made as follows:
40 % by 04.11.2008 60% by 30.09.2009 The applicant has not brought to our notice any cut off date that had been fixed by the Government for payment of 6th CPC arrears to Government employees. However, we find that the orders for release of arrears were issued vide an OM dated 29.08.2008 for payment in two instalments of 40% (to be paid in 2008-2009) and 60% (to be paid in 2009-2010). The relevant portion of OM dated 25.08.2009, is extracted below:
As communicated vide this Department Resolution No.1/1/2008-IC dated 29th August, 2008, the Government had decided that the arrears on account of implementation of Sixth Central Pay Commissions recommendations will be paid in cash in two instalments first instalment of 40% during the year 2008-2009 and the remaining 60% in the financial year 2009-10. The first instalment has already been paid in 2008-2009. It has now been decided that the remaining 60% of arrears may now be paid to the concerned Government servants. In the absence of any cut off date for paying the arrears, the reasonable time for paying the arrears is assessed as 3 months from the date of issue of the relevant orders, viz., 29.08.2008 for 40% of arrears and 25.08.2009 for the remaining 60% of arrears. This is done keeping in view the Judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in S.K.Dua (supra) and M. Padmanabhan Nair (supra) and also the provisions incorporated in the DoPTs OM (dated 22.01.1991), referred to in Para 6.4.1. above. It is our considered view that for delay beyond three months in respect of all the payments that a retired Government servant has become legally entitled to, as per the orders issued after acceptance of the 6th CPCs recommendations, the Government servant concerned (applicant in this case) should be compensated by payment of interest at the GPF rate of interest. Thus, the respondents should pay interest at the GPF rate of interest on the arrears of 40% which should have been paid by 28.11.2008 but which were paid on 27.10.2009. However, as regards 60% arrears, no interest shall be payable as the same was paid on 27.10.2009, i.e. within three months.
Payment of arrears of revised pension:
As regards the payment of arrears of the revised pension from September, 2008 to June, 2009, it is seen that the letter at Annexure A6 dated 25.11.2009, addressed to the applicant by CPAO clearly mentioned as under:
Revised PPO Authority has already been issued on 2.4.2009 which has been further sent to State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi 110 054 (Nodal Office) by CPAO (Copy enclosed) on dated 20.06.2009. The arrear of revised pension is to be paid by State Bank of India, Vikas Puri, New Delhi 110 018. From the above, it is clear that the revised PPO [which modified the PPO dated 10.12.2008] was issued on 2.04.2009 but the same was sent to the concerned State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi by CPAO on 20.06.2009 and the State Bank of India credited an amount of Rs.210569/- only on 27.10.2009. Thus, the applicant received the amount in this case beyond the reasonable time allowed, that could have been avoided, and for this the applicant needs to be compensated. Thus, for this period of delay from 11.03.2009 till the date of actual payment, i.e., on 27.10.2009, interest at the GPF rate of interest would be payable to the applicant.
7. In view of the above discussion, the OA is disposed of by directing the respondents to pay interest to the applicant, at the GPF rate of interest, on the delayed payments in respect of the dues mentioned in para 6.6 above. The aforesaid directions should be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shailendra Pandey) Member (A) /nsnrsp/