Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Principal Accounts Officer, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

4. The Director, Central Food Laboratory, 3 Kyd Street, Kolkata.

. Respondents.

(By Advocate : Shri M.K. Bhardwaj for Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj) : O R D E R :

Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Through this OA, Interest on delayed payment of retiral dues and issue of the CGHS card @ `18,000/- are the claims of the Applicant.

2. The Applicant who was working as Director in the Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata applied for voluntary retirement on 30.01.2009 by giving three months notice to the Respondents, which was accepted vide order dated 29.04.2009 w.e.f. 30.04.2009 (afternoon). It is the case of the Applicant that he was due for his retirement on superannuation on 31.07.2009 only 3 months after the said voluntary retirement. However, the Respondents having not released him the retiral benefits and CGHS card, he moved this Tribunal in OA No.3671/2009 which was decided on 22.12.2009 at the admission stage with directions to the Respondents to treat his OA as representation and take decision on the dues claimed by the Applicant in OA for granting interest in accordance with law. Pursuant to the above directions, the Respondents passed a detailed speaking order dated 08.07.2010 (pages 10-13) which he received on 22.9.2010. As the Respondents failed to allow his claims, he challenged the said order in the present OA. His grievance still remains as the Respondents have denied him any interest on the belated payment of his retiral dues and did not issue him a CGHS pensioners card @`18,000/- but have claimed `60000/-, as per the revised rates of subscription of CGHS for pensioners.

3. Shri Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for the Applicant would submit that the delay in releasing the pensionary benefits and other dues associated with retirement was mainly due to the administrative reasons as admitted by the respondents in their order dated 08.07.2010. His contention is that there has been no departmental and criminal proceedings against the Applicant. He further submits that the CGHS card was not released to him not due to the delay in submitting the application but delay in processing the pension papers in respect of the Applicant which was the administrative delay. The delay was not due to the Applicant. He contends that the well settled principles of law is that an employee is entitled to interest on delayed payment of his retirement benefits and other dues if the employer is responsible for delay on administrative reasons. In the present case, as is stated, the whole delay was on the part of the Respondents and the Applicant cannot be denied interest on all the dues including retirement benefits. In this context he placed his reliance on the judgments of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Birju Singh Versus Union of India and Ors. (OA No.177/2009 decided on 16.04.2009); Tilak Ram Versus Government of NCTD and Ors. (OA No.564/2008 decided on 13.08.2008) and in the matter of K.C. Uttreja Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (OA No.1709/2007 decided on 21.02.2008). He, therefore, pleads that the Applicants request for grant of interest on the belated payment of retirement benefits and issue of CGHS card at the pre-revised rates of `18,000/- should be allowed with appropriate directions to the Respondents.

4. Opposing the contentions raised by the Applicant in the OA, Shri M.K. Bhardwaj appearing on behalf of Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj, learned counsel for Respondents would submit that the Respondents have considered the Applicants claim on both the issues, namely, interest on belated payment of retirement dues and issue of CGHS card at the pre-revised rates of `18,000/ and passed a detailed reasoned and speaking order dated 08.07.2010. He would submit that the present case is not a normal retirement on superannuation but voluntary retirement taken by the Applicant much prior to the date of retirement. In case of the normal retirement all the papers and proposals relating to the settlement on retirement benefits are processed one year in advance which is not possible in the case of voluntary retirement. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the Respondents in settling the retirement benefits of the Applicant, as he availed voluntary retirement. With regard to the claim of the Applicant for CGHS card at the pre-revised rates, it was contended that the CGHS contribution by the pensioners was revised w.e.f. 01.06.2009 vide the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare order dated 20.05.2009. As the Applicants normal retirement on superannuation was due on 31.07.2009, he had to bear enhanced rate of lump sum payment to the CGHS for getting his pensioner CGHS card. The Applicant would have otherwise retired from the Govt. Service w.e.f. 31.07.2009 and at that time he was duty bound to pay the enhanced rate of `60,000/- to avail CGHS pensioners card. Thus Shri Bhardwajs contention is that the order dated 08.07.2010 is sustainable in the eyes of law, and the OA should be dismissed.

12. The second claim raised by the Applicant is indirectly related to the retirement benefits in the sense that the Applicant has demanded issue of Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) card for pensioner on payment, as admissible on the date of his voluntary retirement i.e. on 30.04.2009. Respondents contended that the Applicant was due to retire by the end of July, 2009, by which date, the payment to be made by the pensioner for getting the CGHS card was revised and stepped up to `60,000/- from `18,000/-It is not in dispute that the Applicant took his voluntary retirement which was accepted by the Government and the same came into force w.e.f. 30.04.2009. The revision of payments towards CGHS card came into force by the order of 30.06.2009. As the revision has come into force after the Applicant retired, the revised rate of `60,000 will not be applicable to the Applicant. It is the Respondents to claim the admissible rate as existed on 01.05.2009 when the Applicant has become pensioner. Thus, there is merit in the case of the Applicant that he will be eligible to pay only `18,000/- towards CGHS card rather than `60,000/- demanded by the CGHS authorities. We, therefore, direct that the admissible rate of `18,000/- as it existed on 01.05.2009 should be paid by the Applicant and CGHS card meant for him as a pensioner should be released by the Competent Respondent.