Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
R.C. Rattan Son Of Sh. Jaishi Ram vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 28 January, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH Order reserved on: 25.01.2016 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 060/00507/2015 Chandigarh, this the 28th day of January, 2016 CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A) R.C. Rattan son of Sh. Jaishi Ram, aged 79 years, Income Tax Officer (Retd.), r/o House NO. 739, Chander Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, Punjab. .APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE: SHRI D.R. SHARMA VERSUS 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Admn.), Headquarters, Central Revenue Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana. .RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: SHRI K.K. THAKUR ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER(J):-
This case has chequered history of litigation, but for the disposal of this O.A., facts lie in a narrow compass.
2. The applicant R.C. Rattan joined service as Steno-Typist on 09.09.1955 in the Income Tax Department and got promotions as Senior Clerk, Head Clerk, Inspector and Income Tax Officer. He retired on 31.10.1993. At that time regular departmental enquiry was pending against him. He also remained under suspension for the period 12.03.1985 to 22.03.1987. Vide order dated 28.05.1996 (Annexure A-6), punishment of permanent withholding of entire pension of the applicant was imposed on him. The same was successfully challenged by the applicant by filing O.A. No. 766/PB/1996 which was allowed vide order dated 09.10.2001 (Annexure A-7). Fresh enquiry was, however, permitted, but was not completed within stipulated period.
3. The applicant submitted representation dated 17.02.2003 (Annexure A-8) claiming interest on delayed payments of arrears of pension and difference of pay etc. The applicant then filed O.A. NO. 524/PB/2003 which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.02.2004 (Annexure A-11). The applicant successfully challenged the said order by filing CWP No. 14307/Cat/2004 which was allowed by Honble High Court vide judgment dated 20.02.2014 (Annexure A-5) in the following terms:
We direct that the interest as per the rules be calculated and the interest with the details of calculation be remitted to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. In case of any delay, such amount will carry further interest of 12% per annum on quantified amount. Pursuant thereto, the respondents vide order dated 10.06.2014 (Annexure A-4) paid interest to the applicant @ 12% per annum on delayed payments.
4. The respondents issued corrigendum dated 22.04.2015 (Annexure A-1) to order dated 10.06.2014 (Annexure A-4) intimating that the applicant is entitled to interest @ 8.7% per annum which is prevalent GPF rate of interest and not @ 12% per annum as earlier paid vide order dated 10.06.2014 (Annexure A-4). Recoveries were accordingly ordered from the applicant. The applicant made representations dated 01/05.05.2015 and 04.06.2015 (Annexure A-3) against corrigendum (Annexure A-1). However, the said representations of the applicant have been rejected vide order dated 05.06.2015 (Annexure A-2). Feeling aggrieved the applicant has field the instant O.A. claiming the following reliefs:
ii) That the impugned order dated 22.04.2015 and order dated 05.06.2015 (Annexure A-1 and A-2) be quashed and set- aside in the interest of justice.
iii) That it be declared that on the delayed release of payment of pay and allowances and delay in payment of pension, the applicant is entitled to 12% GPF interest rate applicable during the relevant period of time and not the current rate of interest of 8.7% on GPF.
iv) That the respondents be directed to pay grant further interest of 12% per annum on quantified amount in terms of High Court directions because the quantified amount of interest was to be released within one month whereas the same has been released only vide order dated 10.06.2014 much after the expiry of one month granted by the Honble High Court.
v) That the applicant be held entitled to benefit of law down by the Honble Courts to the effect that the recovery is impermissible from the retired employees, recovery from retired employees will cause hardship, no recovery is sustainable when there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of employee.
5. Respondents in their written statement justified the impugned order alleging that at the time of payment of interest to the applicant, the GPF interest rate was 8.7% and, therefore, the interest has been restricted to 8.7% correctly. It was pleaded that interest was erroneously paid to the applicant @ 12% per annum and the error on detection can be and has been rectified.
6. No rejoinder was filed by the applicant.
7. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
8. Counsel for the applicant contended that payment of interest was for the period from 01.11.1993 to 06.02.2003 and during the said period, GPF interest rates as per Govt. of India decision (Annexure A-10) were as under:
1986-87 to 1999-2000 12% 2000-01 11% 2001-02
9.5% 2002-03 9% It was submitted that interest was payable as per GPF interest rates prevalent during the period for which the payment to the applicant was delayed and not at the GPF rate prevalent at the time of payment of interest amount to the applicant. It was also submitted that the impugned order Annexure A-1 was passed without giving any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the applicant and was thus bad being passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Relying on judgment of Honble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih and Others [Civil Appeal NO. 11527 of 2014] decided on 18.12.2014, it was also submitted that no recovery can be effected from the applicant being retiree because he did not make any misrepresentation and did not play any role or fraud in alleged excess payment. It was also contended that as per the direction of Honble High Court in judgment (Annexure A-5), since interest amount was not paid within one month thereof, the applicant also became entitled to interest of 12% per annum on the quantified amount of interest, which be granted.
9. On the other hand, counsel for respondents reiterated that GPF rate prevalent at the time of payment of interest to the applicant was 8.7% per annum and, therefore, the interest has been correctly restricted to 8.7% per annum.
10. We have carefully considered the matter. Contention of counsel for respondents that GPF interest rate prevalent at the time of payment of interest amount to the applicant has to be seen, is completely absurd, misplaced and devoid of substance. On the other hand, interest became payable because the pension amount was not paid in time to the applicant. The interest is thus payable for the period of delay. Consequently, interest rate prevalent during the period, during which the payment was withheld, would be applicable. Interest rate during the said period was 12% upto 31.03.2000 and a little less for the subsequent short period. Consequently, we find that interest rate @ 12% has been rightly paid to the applicant. It is sought to be wrongly restricted to 8.7% per annum. On the other hand, in view of judgment of Honble High Court, the applicant also became entitled to interest on the quantified amount of interest because the interest amount was not paid within the stipulated period of one month as directed by the Honble High Court. However, we are not granting the same to the applicant because the said amount can be set off against the small amount which may have been paid in excess to the applicant due to lesser rate of interest for a small period.
11. The impugned orders restricting interest to 8.7% and ordering recovery of alleged excess amount are also vitiated due the violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant before reducing the interest rate from 12% to 8.7% per annum.
12. In addition to the aforesaid, the applicant is retired person. He did not play any role in alleged excess payment to him. He did not make any misrepresentation nor played any fraud in this regard. Consequently, in view of the Honble Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih & Ors. (Supra) also, no recovery can be effected from the applicant.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow this O.A. and quash the impugned orders dated 22.04.2015 (Annexure A-1) and 05.06.2015 (Annexure A-2) and hold that the applicant has been rightly paid interest @ 12% per annum and the same cannot be restricted to 8.7% per annum. The respondents are injuncted from recovering any amount from the applicant out of interest amount paid to him vide order dated 10.06.2014 (Annexure A-4). The applicant is, however, not being granted the relief of further interest on the quantified amount of interest as claimed by him. The parties are left to suffer their own costs.
(JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL) MEMBER(J) (RAJWANT SANDHU) MEMBER(A) Dated: 28.01.2016 `SK 1 (OA No 060/00507/2015)