Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jawahar Singh vs Home Affairs on 8 January, 2025
1
OA 1139/2023
Item No.56/C-1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1139/2023
Order reserved on: 03.12.2024
Order pronounced on :08.01.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Jawahar Singh-IPS Rtd. As ADGP,
H. No. 5251/6, Dev Nagar,
Near Khalsa College, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi -10005
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Applicant in person.)
Versus
1. Additional Secretary
Govt. of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai through Additional Chief
Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra,
Nariman Point District.
Mumbai 400021
... Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr.Nitin Lonkar)
2
OA 1139/2023
Item No.56/C-1
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By way of the present OA filed u/s 19 of the AT Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"(a) The Hon'ble Tribunal will be graciously pleased to issue directions to the Respondent for making payment of interest on all the delayed payments for gratuity, payment of pay arrears, and pension to the Applicant at the rate of 18% within a specific period.
(b) To grant all consequential benefits to the applicant as admissible under the law along with interest 18% @ per annum;
© To grant the cost and expenses of the OA in favour of the applicant;
(d) To grant any other relief as deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal."
FACTS IN THE MATTER
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was direct recruit IPS of 1986, and superannuated on 31.12.2012. While discharging his duties as Inspector General of Police, Prisons, Aurangabad, he was placed under suspension on 25.4.2011 in violations of Rule 3 (I)
(a) of AIS (DA) Rules, 1969 as charges were not drawn up which was condition precedent for drawing the charge sheet issued on 06.06.2011 to cover up illegal suspension. The applicant had filed OA 3872/2011 before CAT, Mumbai Bench and Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal directed to file 3 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1 statutory appeal before Govt. of India. The applicant also filed OA 3626/2011 before the Principal Bench for quashing the charge sheet dated 06.06.2011. The Principal Bench in OA No.3874/2011 directed to reinstate the services of the applicant on 25.04.2012 as it was not a corruption case and also the inquiry was not concluded within one year in terms of Rules-3 (1) (b) of AIS (DA) Rules, 1969. The order of the Principal Bench was challenged by the respondent before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P. (Civil) No. 4319/2019 and the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the said Writ Petition. The provisional pension of the applicant was fixed at Rs. 30,355/- at the time of superannuation i.e. on 31.12.2012. The applicant also filed amended OA No. 3626 /2011 before Principal Bench for quashing the charge sheet, which was decided on 01.07.2015, whereby, the respondents were directed to complete the inquiry within three months from the date of receipt of order of the Tribunal. The applicant filed Writ Petition No. 7894/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the decision of the Principal Bench in amended in OA No.3626/2011, the said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.11.2019 which resulted into quashing the charge sheet dated 6.6.2011 with consequential benefits to be paid within three months from the date of 4 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1 receipt of the order. The applicant submits that since his suspension order issued on 25.4.2011 was illegal, subsequent charge sheet would also become illegal. The applicant states that there was a fire in the year 2013 in the office of Government of Maharashtra, where all the files relating to the present case were burnt. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court also called the original file relating to the departmental proceedings but the original file having brunt in fire in Mantralaya in the year 2013, could not be produced, but reconstructed file prepared in the year 2014 on assumptions and presumptions were produced, the real truth of the case could not be produced in absence of original documents. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant claims interest on all delayed payments and relies upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2000 (2) SLR 686); wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the respondents to pay to the retired employee, interest at the rate of 18 % on the belated payment from the date of retirement, till the actual payment was made.
3. In support of his claim, the applicant relies upon the following judgments/orders, namely, (i) judgment dt. 5 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1 02.07.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Union of India vs. Yateendra Singh Jafa, (ii) judgment 07.12.2011 in C.A. No. 753-755 of 2009 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others 2; (iii) Apex Court decision in Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2000 (2) SLR 686); and, (iv) OM dated 20.12.2021 issued by the DOP&T. In view of this, he stated that there are several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court which favours interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, which is not on account of the fault of the retirees.
4. On admission of the OA, notices were issued to the respondents and the respondents have filed their counter reply on 22.02.2024 to which the applicant has also filed rejoinder on 15.3.2024 to the reply filed by them. SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. Counter affidavit filed by the respondents on 22.02.2024, whereby the respondents have stated that vide O.M. of the Home Department dated 08.06.2011 departmental proceedings under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1969 were initiated against the applicant and as departmental proceedings was going on against him, the provisional 6 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1 pension for a period of six months commencing form 01.01.2013 was sanctioned by the Home Department on 05.03.2013. Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that a request to sanction provisional pension from 01.07.2013 until conclusion of the departmental enquiry against the applicant was made by the Government in Home Department to the Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlement)-I, Maharashtra, Mumbai vide order dated 12.09.2013 and the said Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlement)-I, Maharashtra, Mumbai vide letter dated 04.10.2013 sanctioned the proposal of the extension to provisional pension of the applicant from 01.07.2013 till finalization of departmental enquiry. The Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlement)-I, Maharashtra, Mumbai also revised provisional pension of applicant as per 7th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2016 vide letter dated 20.06.2017. The Home Department issued OM dated 17.03.2020 vide which the departmental enquiry against the applicant was closed and he was exonerated from all the charges and requested to sanction regular pension to him. The respondents i.e. Home Department, Government of Maharashtra submitted a proposal to the Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements)-I, Mumbai to revise the applicant's regular pension as per the Deemed Date of 7 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1 promotion to the grade of "Additional General of Police"
and also as per the 7th Pay Commission.
SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICANT
6. In rejoinder to the contents of brief facts of the counter affidavit, the applicant submitted that the respondents seem to be deliberately concealing the true facts about the manner in which the very initiation of the departmental proceedings started by leveling serious charges of corruption against applicant. The then Hon'ble Minister of Maharashtra announced the suspension of the applicant in State Assembly on 07.04.2011. Learned counsel for the applicant states that suspension of the applicant was for ulterior motives as no corruption or corruption related charge were framed in the charge sheet dated 06.06.0211 issued to him. Therefore, the State Assembly was misled about serious fake corruption charges against him to justify suspension and to start the disciplinary proceedings and there was no corruption as the applicant was reinstated on 25.4.2012 by Principal Bench, CAT, New Delhi in OA No.3626/2011 and rejection of the appeal against CAT order dated 25.4.2012 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its W.P.(C) No.4319/2012 as per rule 3 (1) (B) of AIS (DA) Rules, 1969. He further 8 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1 states that suspension of the applicant was illegal and same amounts to legal malice-as "condition precedent" that article of charges should be drawn up before placing an officer under suspension was not satisfied as Preliminary enquiry was conducted in May, 2011 whereas suspension was done on 25.4.2011. Therefore, it was clear violation of Rule 3 (i) (a) of AIS (DA),1969 and also no explanation of the applicant was called before suspension as per DOP&T OM dated 09.06.1995.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant further states that it is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironical to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits.
8. In support of his claim, he relies upon following judgments: (a) Upen Chandra Gogoi Vs. State of Assam & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 381; (b) Satchidananda Misra Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 599; and Regional Manager, SBI Vs. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, (2006) 1 SCC 9 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1
530). (c) C. Albert Morris Vs. K. Chandrasekaran & Ors., (2006) 1 SCC 228, wherein the Court held that "a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin". (d) In Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by LR.s. Vs. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by LR.s. & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 422, the Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non-est and have to be necessarily set aside.
9. On 8.11.2024 when the matter was heard extensively, learned counsel for the respondents wanted time to seek instructions from the respondents and sought three weeks' time.
The time sought was allowed and the matter was again heard on 3.12.2024. On that date, learned Counsel for the respondents mentioned that respondents have briefed him orally and he intends to file additional affidavit within two weeks. The learned counsel was allowed two weeks' time to file additional affidavit and applicant was also permitted to file short brief. Applicant had filed short brief, however, no additional information for which additional two weeks' time was sought by the respondents was filed within the stipulated and allowed time frame.
10. The learned counsel for the applicant also filed written arguments where he has taken most of the grounds which he has already raised in his application as well as the rejoinder filed by him stating that preliminary enquiry was 10 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1 conducted and reported by the then Addl. DG in May,2011- Delhi High Court Judgment in YS Jaffa vs. Union of India- and the then Addl. DG who conducted inquiry against the applicant and the applicant were competing and were in zone of consideration for the post of Addl. DG. He states that deliberate delay on the part of the respondent to harass the applicant to complete inquiry, payment of the consequential benefits and the suspension of the applicant was for ulterior motives and relies on the judgment of Badrinath vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 3243; and State of Kerala vs. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191; State of Punjab vs. Debender Pal Singh 2011 (14) S.C.C. 770; Decision of Apex Court Ramnarayan Singh vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2019 (1) UD 698; D.D Tiwari (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & ors, 2013 (5) SLR 721 (S.C.); S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 563. ANALYSIS
11. The suspension of the applicant was announced on 7th April, 2011 and formal order of the suspension was issued on 25th April, 2011 and within 45 days, he was 11 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1 issued charge sheet Dated 6th June, 2011 as per Rules of AIS (DA) Rules,1969.
12. The contentions of the applicant were that the suspension was in violation of Rule 3 (1) (a) of AIS (DA) Rules, 1969 and there was no charge of corruption as per the charge sheet dated 6th June, 2011. Therefore, the suspension was mala-fide and there was factual malice about corruption and legal malice in law, as the articles of charge were not drawn up and preliminary enquiry was conducted in May, 2011. The Applicant filed Original Application No. 3874/2011 for quashing his suspension order. However, this Tribunal on 25.4.2011 disposed of the OA and reinstated the applicant in terms of AIS (DA) Rules 3 (1) (B) being not a case of corruption as the inquiry was not completed within one year from the date of suspension and the applicant got automatically reinstated.
13. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Courts, the applicant's suspension was illegal as preliminary enquiry was conducted in May, 2011, whereas, formal orders were issued on 25th April, 2011. For facility of reference, the following judgements support the contention of the applicant: -
12OA 1139/2023
Item No.56/C-1
(i) In the matter of Union of India vs. Yateendra Singh Jafa decided on 02.07.2012, Hon'ble Court of Delhi held that: -
"38. The Tribunal considered Rule 3 of the AIS(D&A)Rules, 1969, and Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and observed that sub rule (1) of Rule 10 is totally distinct and different viz-a-viz sub rule (1) of Rule 3, since under Rule 10 (1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, there is no requirement of drawing up of charges before placing the delinquent under suspension, which is a condition precedent while invoking Rule 3(1) of the AIS(D&A) Rules, 1969. While on the other hand it was observed that as per the language used under Rule 3(6) of the AIS(D&A) Rules, 1969 viz-a-viz to Rule 10(4) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 it is identical and pari- materia."
(ii) In the matter of State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others 2; the following was held: -
"72 It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case.
73. In Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243; and State of Kerala v.
Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings equally.
74. Similarly in Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by Lrs. v. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 422, this Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further 13 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1 proceedings, consequent thereto, will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside.
75. In C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran & Ors., (2006) 1 SCC 228, this Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. (See also: Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 381; Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 599; Regional Manager, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, (2006) 1 SCC 530; and Ritesh Tewari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3823)."
14. The Respondent filed an appeal against the decision in OA No. 3874/2011 of Principal Bench, CAT, New Delhi before the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi vide WP (C) 4319/2011 in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs Jawahar Singh and the Hon'ble High Court upheld the decision of the Principal Bench, CAT, New Delhi and dismissed the appeal. The applicant amended the OA No. 3626/2011 filed before this Tribunal for quashing the Charge sheet with additional grounds. This Tribunal on 1st July, 2015 directed the Respondent to complete the inquiry within 3 months and disposed of the OA. The applicant filed W.P. No 7894/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the decision of the Principal Bench, CAT, New Delhi in OA No. 3626/2011. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi disposed of the said Writ Petition in the matter of Jawahar Singh Vs UOI and others vide its order dated 21.11.2019 and quashed the charge sheet dated 6.6.2011 with consequential benefits within 12 weeks from the date 14 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1 of receipt of the order. The retiral dues were paid to the applicant vide Para 4.1 of the OA.
15. On quashing the chargesheet dated 6.6.2011 on 19.11.2019, the applicant was completely exonerated of the charges framed against him. Hence, he became entitled to get his retiral dues within 3 months after his date of superannuation on 31.12.2012.
16. The contentions of the Respondent are that as per Rule 6 of All India Services (Death-cum-retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, the applicant was not paid his retiral dues on his superannuation on 31.12.2012 as there was departmental proceedings pending before the applicant. Hence, there is no question of the payment of interest on retiral dues and on his exoneration, the Respondent paid the retiral dues to him as per details given in reply of the Respondent.
17. The applicant states that the following arrears were paid to him after more than 9 years to 11 years from the date of superannuation on 31.12.2011 and details of the 15 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1 same are mentioned below: -
Sl. Details of various payment Payment
No. due with date Made (In )
1. Pay of suspension period with 7,50,130.00
increase of pension from Rs.30,335/-
to 32,210. Paid on 17.07.2021
2. Gratuity paid on 20.10.2021 9,81,000.00
3. Difference in pension from 1.1.2013 9,80,838.00
till October, 2021
4. Payment of Group Insurance Scheme 1,00,000.00
(GIS) Paid on 2.12.2013
5. Payment of communication of 11,31,540.00
pension made on 23.03.2023
6. Difference pay from Rs.760215 on 5,34,611.00
Rs.2,25,604 on account of the
promotion from the rank of IG to
Addl. DG Police on 28.02.2023
18. The applicant submits that he was paid retiral benefits in the period from 2021 to 2023 and was also given notional promotion of Additional Director General of Police from August, 2012 and he requested respondents through email to grant 18 % interest on the delayed payment vide its email dated 30th May, 2022, 14.05.2022, 17.5.2022, 11.2.2023,12.02.2023, 02.03.2023, 20.03.2023 and dated 22.2.2023. He further states that there is DOP&T, New Delhi OM on the subject and a long time has lapsed from the date of email sent to the respondent no. 2 but nothing has been heard from them on the subject or payment on account of interest on delayed payment released till date. Therefore, the applicant has filed present Original Application seeking the aforementioned relief. 16 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1
19. On the other hand, the applicant submitted a written arguments detailing the grounds for payment of penal interest @18% on all retiral dues wherein he stated that the respondent is deliberately ignoring the provisions of Rule 19A of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, wherein, it is incorporated that interest has to be paid on delayed retiral dues after the date of three months from the date of superannuation. The above Rule 19 A was inserted vide DP&AR Notification No. 25011/22/82-AIS(II) dt 16.7.83. Rule 19A reads as follows:
-
"19A. Interest on delayed payment of Gratuity or Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity: 19A (1) If the payment of gratuity or death- cum-retirement gratuity has been authorised after three months from the date when its payment became due, and it is clearly established that the delay in payment was attributable to administrative lapses, interest at the rate prescribed by the Central Government from time to time shall be paid on the amount of gratuity or death-cum-retirement gratuity in respect of the period beyond three months."
20. In the year 1991, the Government of India DoPT allowed interest on delayed payments on retiral dues vide letter No. 7/20/89-P & No. (F) dated 22.1.91 and the provisions were extended to Members of AIS vide letter 25011/10/91-AIS(II) dated 21.3.91 of DoP&T which reads as follows: -
17OA 1139/2023
Item No.56/C-1 "It has been decided that if the payment of gratuity has been delayed due to administrative lapses for no fault of the retiring employee in cases of retirement other than superannuation, the payment of interest may be regulated in the following manner: -
(i) In case of Govt. servants against whom disciplinary/judicial proceedings are pending on the date of retirement and in which gratuity is withheld till the conclusion of the proceedings: -
(a) In such cases if the government servant is exonerated of all charges and where the gratuity is paid on the conclusion of such proceeding, the payment of gratuity will be deemed to have falling due on the date following the date of retirement vide DP&AR OM No. 1/4/Pen. Unit/82 dated 10/1/83, If the payment of gratuity has been delayed, interest may be allowed beyond the period of 3 months from the date of retirement."
21. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad V. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330 authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon on the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. The right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any order of the authority but by virtue of statutory Rules.
22. It is a well settled position of law that where charge sheet is dropped and the employee is exonerated of all charges, retiral dues are to be paid with interest. It is held that there may be rule or not but denial of interest on 18 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1 retiral due is violation of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. For facility of reference, the relevant para in the matter of S.K. Dua vs State of Haryana & Anr decided on 9 January, 2008 is mentioned as under: -
"11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the appellant retired from service on June 30, 1998. It is also undisputed that at the time of retirement from service, the appellant had completed more than three decades in Government Service. Obviously, therefore, he was entitled to retiral benefits in accordance with law. True it is that certain charge sheets/ show cause notices were issued against him and the appellant was called upon to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. It is, however, the case of the appellant that all those actions had been taken at the instance of Mr. Quraishi against whom serious allegations of mal- practices and misconduct had been levelled by the appellant which resulted in removal of Mr. Quraishi from the post of Secretary, Irrigation. The said Mr. Quraishi then became Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. Immediately thereafter charge-sheets were issued to the appellant and proceedings were initiated against him. The fact remains that proceedings were finally dropped and all retiral benefits were extended to the appellant. But it also cannot be denied that those benefits were given to the appellant after four years. 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. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents."
23. In Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P, AIR 2000 (SC) 3513(2), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is 19 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1 expected that all the payment of retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter. If for some unforeseen circumstances, the payment could not be made on the date of retirement, interest needs to be paid to the retired employee. In the above case, there was considerable delay in making payment of retirement benefits without any reason or justification for such delay and therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded simple interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of payment.
24. From the above decisions and guidelines issued by the Government mentioned above, the interest has to be paid on retiral dues from the date of superannuation as per the following:-
(i) Rule 19A of All India Services (Death-Cum-
Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958
(ii) letter No. 7/20/89-P & No. (F) dated 22.1.91 extended to members of AIS vide letter 25011/10/91-AIS(II) dated 21.3.91 of DOP&T, GOI
(iii) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases; R. Kapur Vs Director of Inspection decided on 29 September, 1994; 20 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1 Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P, AIR 2000 (SC) 3513(2); Uma Agrawal (Dr) v. State of U.P., (1999) 3 SCC 438; S.K. Dua versus State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44.
25. In the matter of R. Kapur Vs Director of Inspection decided on 29 September, 1994, interest @ 18 % was allowed. For facility of reference, para 11 of the judgement is as under: -
"11. The Tribunal having come to the conclusion that DCRG cannot be withheld merely because the claim for damages for unauthorised occupation is pending, should in our considered opinion, have granted interest at the rate of 18% since right to gratuity is not dependent upon the appellant vacating the official accommodation. Having regard to these circumstances, we feel that it is a fit case in which the award of 18% is warranted and it is so ordered. The DCRG due to the appellant will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1-6-1986 till the date of payment. Of course this shall be without prejudice to the right of the respondent to recover damages under Fundamental Rule 48-A. Thus, the civil appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
26. In the matter of Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P, AIR 2000 (SC) 3513(2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed 18% interest. Hon'ble Supreme Court not only accorded interest on GIS but also on encashment of leave, gratuity, commuted pension etc., which is a binding precedent.
21OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1
27. In the matter of Uma Agrawal (Dr) v. State of U.P., (1999) 3 SCC 438, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the court can certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the Rules/instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case. (emphasis added)
28. In the matter of S.K. Dua versus State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue of interest on retiral dues and 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 the absence of 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. 22 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1
29. Rule 68 of CCS (Pension) rules provides for interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. For facility of reference, decision of Government of India issued vide OM No. F. 7 (1)-P.U./79, dated 11.07.1979 and OM No. 1(4)/Pen. Unit/82, dated 10.01.1983 is as follows: -
"(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.(G1, Dept. of Pst. & A.R, OM. No. F. 7 (1)-PU/79, dated the 11th July, 1979 and No. 1 (4)/Pen. Unit/82, dated the 10th January, 1983.] (2) Interest for delayed payment of Retirement/Death Gratuity to be at the rate applicable to GPF deposits. 23 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1
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/dependants 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."
30. It is clear from the conspectus of this matter that retiral dues were paid to the applicant with a considerable delay of around 9 to 10 years after his retirement. It is a matter of grave concern and reflects on the disdainful approach of the respondent towards settlement of retiral dues of a retired government officer.
31. The DOPT has issued O.M. of 1992 wherein 12 % interest has been stipulated to be paid on the delayed payment of gratuity. Another DOPT OM emphasising the timely conclusion of the Inquiry and maximum limit for completing the inquiry is about 18 months, whereas, in the present case, the delay in conclusion of inquiry itself is abnormal. Administrative authorities miserably failed to take action to complete inquiry in a timely manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that pension is not a bounty by State but is earned. Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, the applicant is entitled for penal rate of interest on delayed payments of retiral dues. 24 OA 1139/2023 Item No.56/C-1
32. In view of above, the Original Application is allowed with following directions: -
(i) Except for the amount of Gratuity, the respondent is directed to pay interest on the retiral dues of the applicant paid with delay at the rate of 18% from the date of superannuation till the date of actual payment within 12 weeks from the date of certified copy of this order;
(ii) Interest on the delayed payment of gratuity shall be paid at the rate as applicable to GPF compounded annually;
(iii) Respondent is also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rs.
Twenty-five thousand only) to the applicant as cost of litigation;
(iv) Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
(Rajinder Kashyap) Member (A) /mk/