Union of India & Ors v. Daya Ram

1. By way of the present petition, the Petitioner seek quashing of order dated 13.09.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. NO. 94/2013, whereby the Tribunal has directed the Petitioners to pay interest to the Respondent in accordance with the rate as applicable to General Provident Fund in that particular year from the date he was due for grant of payment of retrial benefits in respect of his pre-mature retirement.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent was pre-maturely retired on 15.09.2006 vide order dated 14.06.2006 against which he instituted O.A. No. 1869/2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, which was decided vide order dated 29.05.2007 directing the Petitioner NO. 2 to consider and decide the representation of the Respondent by means of reasoned order. The Petitioner No. 3 rejected the representation of the Respondents against which the Respondent filed O.A. No. 1833/2007 which 2015:DHC:6837-DB was dismissed Tribunal vide order dated 03.06.2009. The Respondent filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11595/2009 challenging the aforesaid order of this Tribunal before the High Court of Delhi, which is pending consideration and adjudication while in the meantime, the Respondent filed his pension papers duly complete in all respect and duly attested by Petitioner No. 3 on 12.09.2006 and the same were forwarded to the competent sanctioning authority, i.e. Petitioner No. 2 on 04.10.2006. However, the Petitioners vide letter dated 03.03.2010 directed the respondent to submit the medical certificate for commutation and photographs for sanctioning the pension which was submitted on 15.04.2011, the Petitioners instead of granting retiral dues to the respondent directed him to apply for provisional pension against which he filed an O.A. No. 3614/2011. During the pendency of the said O.A., the Petitioners released the retirement benefits to the Respondent on 16.01.2012 and the General Provident Fund amount on 01.03.2012. Thereafter, the said O.A. was finally decided vide order dated 07.07.2012 taking note of the fact that pensionary benefits have been released to the Respondent and only issue of interest on the delayed payment was left. The Learned Tribunal directed the Respondent vide the said order to submit a representation before the competent authority and further directed the Petitioners to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the same. It was in pursuance of the order of the Learned Tribunals that the order dated 15.10.2012 was passed.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Learned Tribunal overlooked that the pension papers submitted by the Respondent on 12.09.2006 were incomplete. The council further contended that the pension papers submitted by the Respondent on 12.09.2001[6] were bereft of necessary particulars and the said decision, after due process and verification, was (after consideration of the representation of the Respondent against pre-mature retirement, as directed by the Learned Tribunal vide order dated 29.05.2007 in O.A. No. 1893/2006) communicated to the Respondent vide letter dated 24.12.2007 vide which the Respondent was asked to submit three passport size photographs. The Respondent, however, refused to comply with the said request as came to be reported by Assistant Supdt. Of Post Office, West Sub Division, Gurgaon vide communication dated 21.08.2008.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the Tribunal failed to take note that after submission of the pension papers by the Respondent, the Petitioner authorities acted expeditiously. It is submitted that on 06.09.2011, Petitioner No. 2 was requested to issue necessary orders for sanction of pension of the Respondent and after getting the documents completed, the SPO Gurgaon sanctioned the pension of the Respondent and sent the calculation sheet to petitioner No. 2 on 13.12.2011 and upon the receipt of the same, Petitioner No. 2 informed the Post Master, Gurgaon, to make arrangement for payment of pension to the Respondent. Thereafter, on 06.02.2012, SPO, Gurgaon informed that payment of DCRF and commutation of pension had been paid to the Respondent on 16.01.2012. Further, on 01.03.2012, leave encashment, CGEIS and General Provident Fund final payment also stood paid to the Respondent.

5. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that the Petitioners are liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% on delayed payment of retiral dues of the Respondent as he retired w.e.f. 15.09.2006 vide order dated 14.06.2006 whereas pensionary benefits were released to him on 16.01.2012 and 01.03.2012, whereas the challenge before this court was in relation to his pre-mature retirement. Therefore, the pendency of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11595/2009 filed by the Respondent before the Hon’ble High Court could not act an impediment to the decision in the instant case. The Learned Counsel further contended that all the papers duly completed and countersigned by the Petitioner No. 3 and the Respondent was, however, made to ride a merry-go-round by calling for papers once again, which was already submitted by him. The pensionary benefits were released only after the Respondent has filed O.A. No. 3614/2011 before the Learned Tribunal. The learned counsel contends that the Respondent is entitled for grant of interest on delayed payment of retiral dues, which has been delayed on account of revengeful attitude of the Petitioner authorities.

6. After taking into consideration the submissions of Learned Counsel for both the parties, the sole question arises in the present case for our consideration is whether the direction of the Learned Tribunal to grant interest to the Respondent at the same rate as applicable to General Provident Fund in that particular year from the date he was due for grant of payment of retiral benefits in respect of his pre-mature retirement is just and proper?

7. In the case of S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and Others: (2008) 3 SCC 44, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was confronted with the similar questions. Here petitioner, the Chief Engineer, had been send on deputation to a lower and unimportant post, especially created for him. The Petitioner retired on 30.06.1998 whereas the retirement benefits were given to him between June 11 and July 18, 2002. The Petitioner claimed interest on delayed payment of retirement benefits. This Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Petitioner’s Writ Petition in limine. The Respondent in that case had taken a plea that vigilance inquiry was still pending against him. Yet the Hon’ble Supreme Court took a view that:

8. In the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P.: (2001) 9 SCC 687, the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the same issue and observed that:

The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that there was no justification for withholding of pension for month and directed the payment of interest at similar of 18%. In Para 4 of the said judgment, the Apex Court held that:

9. In the case of Gorakhpur University v. Shitla Prasad Nagendra (Dr): (2001) 6 SCC 591, the petitioner being a University Professor, who retired on 30.06.1990, was not given his pension. The part of his pension was adjusted against due and remaining amounts were withheld for the reason that he was not vacating his quarter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in this regard as follows:-

5. We have carefully considered the submission on behalf of the respective parties before us. The earlier decision pertaining to this very University, reported in S.N. Mathur [(1996) 2 ESC 211 (All)] is that of a Division Bench, rendered after considering the principles laid down and also placing reliance upon the decisions of this Court reported in R. Kapur [(1994) 6 SCC 589: 1995 SCC (L&S) 13: (1994) 28 ATC 516] which, in turn, relied upon earlier decisions in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair [(1985) 1 SCC 429: 1985 SCC (L&S) 278] and Som Prakash[(1981) 1 SCC 449: 1981 SCC (L&S) 200: AIR 1981 SC 212]. This Court has been repeatedly emphasizing the position that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be distributed by the Government but are valuable rights acquired and property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest. Withholding of quarters allotted, while in service, even after retirement without vacating the same has been viewed to be not a valid ground to withhold the disbursement of the terminal benefits. Such is the position with reference to amounts due towards provident fund, which is rendered immune from attachment and deduction or adjustment as against any other dues from the employee. In the context of this, mere reliance on behalf of the appellant upon yet another decision of a different Division Bench of the very High Court rendered without taking note of any of the earlier decisions of this Court but merely proceeding to decide the issue upon equitable considerations of balancing conflicting claims of respective parties before it does not improve the case of the appellant any further. Reliance placed for the appellant University on the decision reported in Wazir Chand [(2001) 6 SCC 596: JT 2000 Supp (1) SC 515] does not also sound well on the facts and circumstances of this case. It is not clear from the facts relating to the said decision as to whether the person concerned was allowed to remain in occupation on receipt of the normal rent as in the present case. As noticed earlier, the case of the contesting respondent in this case is that the university authorities regularly accepted the rent at normal rates every month from the petitioner till the quarters were vacated and that in spite of request made for the allotment of the said quarters in favour of the son of the respondent, who is in the service of the University, no decision seems to have been taken and communicated though it is now claimed in the court proceedings that he is not entitled to this type of accommodation. Further, the facts disclosed such as the resolutions of the University resolving to waive penal rent from all Teachers as well as that of the Executive Council dated 18-7-1994 and the actual such waiver made in the case of several others cannot be easily ignored. The lethargy shown by the authorities in not taking any action according to law to enforce their right to recover possession of the quarters from the respondent or fix liability or determine the so-called penal rent after giving prior show-cause notice or any opportunity to him before ever even proceeding to recover the same from the respondent renders the claim for penal rent not only a seriously disputed or contested claim but the University cannot be allowed to recover summarily the alleged dues according to its whims in a vindictive manner by adopting different and discriminatory standards. The facts disclosed also show that it is almost one year after the vacation of the quarters and that too on the basis of certain subsequent orders increasing the rates of penal rent, the applicability of which to the respondent itself was again seriously disputed and to some extent justifiably too, the appellant cannot be held to be entitled to recover by way of adjustment such disputed sums or claims against the pension, gratuity and provident fund amounts indisputably due and unquestionably payable to the respondent before us. The claims of the University cannot be said to be in respect of an admitted or conceded claim or sum due. Therefore, we are of the view that no infirmity or illegality could be said to have vitiated the order, under challenge in this appeal, to call for our interference, apart from the further reason that the disbursements have already been said to have been made in this case as per the decision of the High Court.