Telangana High Court
G. Venkati vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 12 October, 2022
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P. No. 14215 of 2020
Between:
G.Venkati
... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 12.10.2022
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes
______________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 14215 of 2020
% 12.10.2022
Between:
# G.Venkati
..... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana and others
.....Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr K.Arvind Kumar
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Standing counsel for
Municipalities
? Cases Referred:
1. (2001) 10 SCC 174
2. 2014 (9) SCALE 78
3. W.P.No.28128 of 2018 dt. 09.08.2018
3
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.14215 of 2020
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the entire action of the respondents in releasing the retirement benefits of the petitioner with abnormal delay of more than four years from the date of petitioner's retirement without any fault from the petitioner's side, despite petitioner submitting his pension papers within time as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, colorable excise of power, vindictive attitude and opposed to Articles 16 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay interest @ 24% per annum for the period from the date of retirement to till the actual payment is made ie., between 31.10.2016 and 30.04.2020.
3. Perused the record.
4. The petitioner on an occasion approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.29357 of 2017. This Court passed interim direction on 31.08.2017 in WPMP.No.36535 of 2017 in 4 WP.No.29357 of 2017, directing the respondents to forthwith release the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner duly accepting the pension proposals forwarded by the 2nd respondent consequent on retirement of the petitioner by suspending the operation of the impugned letter DAO.SA No.15/A7/2016-17, dated 23.01.2017 of the 3rd respondent wherein the 3rd respondent instructed the 2nd respondent to recover the pay and allowances paid to the petitioner for a period of two yeas.
5. Writ Petition No.29357 of 2017 filed by the petitioner was disposed of finally on 21.02.2019, observing as follows:-
14. "The Calcutta High Court in WP.No.28467 (W) of 2017 while dealing with similar situation in respect of undertaking held as follows:-
"In my considered view the issue regarding undertaking exercised b y the petitioner has already been discussed in plethora of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court. In State of West Bengal & Others Vs. Harekrishna Sardar & Anr. Reported in 2009 (4) CHN (CAL) Page 136 where the Hon'ble Division bench relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1957 SC 1269 (State of Orissa Vs. Dr.Miss Binapani Dey) held that even if undertaking was given but after retirement deduction from the gratuity amount without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner when the petitioner was in service cannot be sustained since it is an administrative order which causes civil consequences. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Division Bench affirmed the Trial Court Judgment without any interference."5
15.In view of the above, I do not see any justification on the part of the respondents in recovering salary and allowances paid to the petitioner for the period from 31.10.2014 to 31.10.2016, from the retirement benefits of the petitioner. As far as the other aspect with regard to calculation of retirement benefits is concerned, even according to petitioner he attained the age of superannuation by 31.10.2014 and the Rules permit only calculation of period upto the age of superannuation. In view of the same, the said excess service of two years rendered by the petitioner from 31.10.2014 to 31.10.2016 cannot be counted for calculation of pension. Though learned counsel for respondents states that proceedings dated 16.06.2017 were not challenged, those are consequential proceedings to the impugned proceedings, more so, by way of amendment the same are sought to be challenged by the petitioner.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The amount already recovered, if any, from the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
6. The statement filed by the 2nd respondent Municipality gives the details of the amount recovered from the pension and gratuity of Sri.G.Venkat ie., the petitioner herein, who is the holder of pension payment Order No.78-000043/SP towards Pay and Allowances paid for the period from 01.11.2014 to 31.10.2016. The remarks column in the said statement reads as under:-
"Since the above amount has been recovered from the pension and gratuity of the individual ie., an amount of Rs.5,14,850 only from gratuity and an amount of Rs.6,35,139/- only from pension has been recovered and both put together fro Rs.11,49,989/- has been adjusted to the MH.2217-80-001-08010.011, through the WP.No.29357 6 of 2017 dated 21.02.2019 delivered for judgment for repayment of the amount already recovered from individual's pension. Hence the amount is claimed in this bill."
7. Para 3 of the Counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent reads as follows:-
"The CDMA ie., Office of Director of Municipal Administration, TS, Hyderabad, gave approval vide Memo ROC.No.174979/2020/M2, dated 13.03.2020 to this office thereby instructed to follow the orders of the Hon'ble court in WP.No.29357/2017.
Further it is submitted that there is no abnormal delay as alleged by the petitioner as the petitioner is well known all these facts and each and every corresponding to the higher departments made by this office regarding the payment of amount to the petitioner also sent a copy of the petitioner and the higher departments also sent copies to the petitioner for his information and there is no delay on processing the communications between the concerned departments in respect of the petitioner grievance.
Hence the communications made by this office is very transparent and there is no delay in any stage of implementing the orders of the Hon'ble Court. As such the petitioner is not entitled for any interest. It is therefore prayed the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition in circumstances of justice.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 10.10.2000 in Bal Kishore Mody Vs. Arun Kumar Singh and Others in Paras 2, 3 and 4, observed as follows:
"The Court observed that in case of non-compliance with the order, it would be open to the appellant to bring the aforesaid facts to the notice of the Court to take appropriate action against the erring officer including the Treasury Officer and/or I/C Headmaster of the school. The Court has also kept the question open with regard to the grievance of the appellant for wrong calculation of the provident fund and interest thereon. It has been pointed out that inspire of the 7 order of the High Court to make the payment within three days from May 17, 1999 the amount was released after a long time.
At the time of the hearing of the matter, considering the delay in making payment of retiral benefits, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submitted that this Court may pass appropriate orders giving direction to pay interest on the said amount and the State Government would pay the same within one month from the date of the order. He further submitted that appropriate action would be taken against the officer(s) concerned who delayed the payment of retiral benefits. In this view of the matter, we do not propose to take any further action in these contempt proceedings.
Hence it is directed that the respondents shall pay interest on the retiral benefits from January, 15, 1996 till the date of payment at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. With regard to GPP payment, no further interest is required to be paid as the amount is already released with interest. The appeal is disposed of accordingly and the High Court's judgment shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent is directed to pay to the appellant costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 01.08.2014 in D.D.Tewari (D) through LRs Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., and others (2014 (9) SCALE - 78) - in case of delay in payment of pension and gratuity was pleased to award @ 9% per annum interest from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment and, it is observed at Para 6 of the said judgment observed as follows:-
"For the reasons stated above, we award interest at the rate of 9% on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity amount from the date of entitlement till the date of 8 the actual payment. If this amount is not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of amount falls due to the deceased employee. With the above directions, this appeal is allowed.
10. The Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.28128 of 2018 dated 09.08.2018 in State of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. K.Stanaka at Para 7, was pleased to observe as follows:-
"In the case of D.D.Tewari (dead) through LRs. Vs. Uttar Haryana Bujlivitran Nigam Limited and Others (2014) 8 SCC 894 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in similar circumstances, has awarded interest at 9% per annum on pension and gratuity to be paid by the employers- authorities."
11. The plea of respondent No.2 in the counter affidavit is that there is no delay in any stage in implementing the orders of the Court. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any interest is not tenable. In view of the simple fact that the interim orders in favour of the petitioner are dated 31.08.2017 and final orders in favour of the petitioner are dated 21.02.2019 and the petitioner retired from the service on 31.10.2016 and it is only on 30.04.2020, the actual payment is made to the petitioner releasing the 9 retirement benefits due to the petitioner as per law. This Court prima facie opines that the respondents herein have erroneously withheld the release of retrial benefits of the petitioner till 30.04.2020 and therefore, the grievance voiced by the petitioner appears to be well founded that the petitioner would be entitled to interest on such benefits. This Court is of the firm view that the petitioner is entitled for interest under Part III of the Constitution of India relying on Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India since retrial benefits are not in the nature of bounty and an employee is entitled as of right to get the said benefit immediately after superannuation. This Court opines that there is no justification in the action of the respondents in denying the payment of penal amount on the delayed payment of gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the writ petition deserves to be allowed by directing the respondents to pay interest on the retrial dues released to the petitioner on 30.04.2020 after nearly four years after petitioner's retirement on 30.10.2016. 10
12. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the interest @ 15% per annum for the period from the date of retirement to till the actual payment is made ie., the period between 31.10.2016 to 30.04.2020, on the retirement benefits of the petitioner within a period of FOUR WEEKS from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand dismissed.
_________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date:12.10.2022.
SSN 11 THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.14215 of 2020 12.10.2022 SSN