GOVT OF NCT DELHI AND ORS v. RAM TIRTH SHARMA

1. We fail to understand why orders such as the impugned order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal[1] in the present case are at all challenged.

2. The respondent was initially appointed as teacher with the Directorate of Education[2], GNCTD and was subsequently promoted on 2 May 1996 as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT). After rendering 34 years of service, the respondent retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 July 2017 as PGT (Sanskrit). “The learned Tribunal”, hereinafter “DOE”, hereinafter

3. As the respondent’s retiral dues, as per the scale of pay to which he was entitled, were not being released, he addressed a representation to the petitioner, to which no response was forthcoming. Accordingly, the respondent was constrained to approach the learned Tribunal by way of OA 1566/2020. Vide order dated 19 October 2020, the learned Tribunal disposed of the OA with a direction to the DOE to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order thereon within 10 weeks of the order.

4. As there was no compliance with the said direction, the respondent had to approach the learned Tribunal by way of CP 57/2021. Even thereafter, it was only three years after the order which was passed by the learned Tribunal on 19 October 2020 that the petitioner condescended, by order dated 19 October 2023, to pass an order releasing the retiral dues of the respondent. The respondent, thereafter, re-approached the learned Tribunal by way of OA 1549/2023, seeking interests for the delay in disbursal of his retiral dues.

5. Disturbingly, the petitioner opposed even this OA of the respondent, contending that there was no direction in the order dated 19 October 2020, passed by the learned Tribunal in OA 1566/2020 for payment of interest to the respondent. This argument of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Tribunal which has, by the impugned order dated 15 July 2024, directed the petitioners to pay interest at the rate of 7% on the retiral dues of the respondent from the expiry of one month from 19 October 2020 till the date of actual payment of the retiral dues.

6. Against the said order, the Petitioner-GNCTD and DOE have approached this Court by means of the present petition.

7. In the present petition, the chief stand that has been taken by the petitioner is that OA 1549/2023 was barred by res judicata.

8. The stand is astonishing, to say the least. The petitioner, for no valid reason whatsoever, compelled the respondent to have to approach the learned Tribunal thrice, first by way of OA 1566/2020, thereafter by way of CP 57/2021 and, thereafter, by way of OA 1549/2023, in which the presently impugned order has been passed.

9. There is no conceivable reason as to why, immediately on the superannuation of the respondent, his valid retiral dues were not disbursed to him. As a result of the completely apathetic attitude of the petitioner, the respondent, a retired school teacher, has had to wait for three years to get his retiral dues.

10. The respondent’s case was contested at every possible stage. Even after the learned Tribunal had, by its order dated 19 October 2020, directed a decision to be taken on the representation of the respondent within ten weeks, nothing was done. It is only after the respondent preferred CP 57/2021, and the petitioners, therefore, felt the heat of the dispute that the petitioner, three years after the order dated 19 October 2020 passed by the learned Tribunal, took a decision to release the retiral dues to the respondent.

11. The manner in which the petitioners have acted is deprecable. We say no more.

12. The plea of res judicata raised by petitioner is completely frivolous. There has been no adjudication on merits prior to the passing of the present order. Earlier, the order passed by the learned Tribunal was, for disposal of the representation of the respondent. Even thereafter, the petitioner sat on the representation for three years and forced the respondent to file a contempt petition before the orders were passed. It is inconceivable how petitioner is pleading res judicata at this point of time.

13. This petition, therefore, to say the least, is a misadventure and this Court deprecates the very fact that such a petition was filed.

14. We are inclined, in this matter, to award punitive costs. However, as the learned Tribunal has already directed payment of interests to the respondent, we presently refrain from doing so. Accordingly, while dismissing this writ petition summarily and in limine, we make it clear that payment to the respondent in terms of the orders passed by the learned Tribunal shall be released within two weeks from today and compliance reported to this Court on 12 November 2024.

15. In the event that the amounts are not released to the respondent within two weeks, the petitioner shall be liable to pay additional costs of ₹ 25,000/-, over and above the amount that has to be released to the respondent as per the order passed by the learned Tribunal.