NDMC v. Vijay Laxmi

1. These petitions have been filed by the parties, challenging the Order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 2337/2016, titled Vijay Laxmi (Retd.) v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors., whereby the O.A. filed by Ms.Vijay Laxmi was partially allowed in the following terms:

2. In the present Judgment, we shall be referring to Smt. Vijay Laxmi as the petitioner, and the erstwhile North Delhi Municipal Corporation (now Municipal Corporation of Delhi) as the respondent.

3. The petitioner was working as Assistant Education Officer (Science) and was posted at Karol Bagh Zone. By an Order dated 28.05.2013, she was promoted to the post of Deputy Director Education (General) on current duty charge, and was transferred to the Headquarters. By a subsequent Order dated 01.06.2013, she was transferred to the Civil Lines Zone, where she joined on 04.06.2013, whereafter, she was transferred to the Sadar Paharganj Zone on 11.07.2013.

4. It is contended that the petitioner was not released any salary for the month of May, 2013 onwards. She proceeded on leave on 15.07.2013, and remained on leave till 19.07.2013., without filing any application for the same. However, she later applied for extension of leave on medical grounds with effect from 20.07.2013 to 26.07.2013, and joined the duty on 29.07.2013, but again proceeded on leave on the very same day. She continued to remain on leave till 14.03.2014. She was declared fit for duty on 15.03.2014, and she joined duty on 18.03.2014. She superannuated from service on 31.07.2014.

5. Claiming that her salary for the period 15.07.2013 till 14.03.2014 had not been released to her, and her retiral dues were also not released to her on time, she filed the above O.A. before the learned Tribunal.

6. From the extracts of the Order reproduced hereinabove, it would be apparent that the learned Tribunal, by its Impugned Order, held that the petitioner would not be entitled to interest on the delay in release of the salary to her, as she herself was responsible for the delay in the release of the same. However, as far as the delay in payment of the retiral dues are concerned, the learned Tribunal held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the GPF rates of interest as the delay in releasing the same was caused by the respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in release of the salary was on account of the administrative reasons of the respondent. He submits that the petitioner had been submitting timely applications for sanction of her leave, however, the respondent failed to take any decision thereon. It is only when the petitioner finally joined service on 18.03.2014, that the file was moved for obtaining ex post facto sanction of her leave. In the Note put up for obtaining instructions on the treatment to be according to the period of leave, it was highlighted by the department itself that a decision on the same should be expedited because the petitioner was to retire on 31.07.2014. In spite of the same, due to lack of the Last Pay Certificate (LPC) being transferred from Karol Bagh Zone, where she was earlier posted, to the Headquarter and finally to the Sadar Paharganj Zone, the salary could not be released to the petitioner. He submits that the respondent also required the biometric attendance sheet from the Karol Bagh Zone, which the Karol Bagh Zone failed to provide, however, the blame of the same has been placed on the shoulders of the petitioner. He submits that as the payment of the salary dues have been delayed by the respondent, the petitioner was entitled to interest on the same.

8. The learned counsel for the MCD, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was posted as a Deputy Director Education and, therefore, was the Officer-in-Charge for pay dispersion not only for herself but for other employees in the Zone as well. It is for the fault of the petitioner that her Last Pay Certificate could not be prepared, as she went on leave without sanction. Later, even though she was requested to provide her biometric attendance sheet, she failed to do so.

9. The learned counsel for the MCD further submits that in spite of an intimation being given to her, the petitioner failed to appear before the concerned officer for signing the salary certificates on time, and instead, raised frivolous representations and queries. She submits that it is for the above reason that there was a delay, not only in releasing the salary but also the retiral dues to the petitioner, for which the respondent cannot be faulted. She submits that the learned Tribunal, rightly rejecting the claim of interest of the petitioner towards salary dues, however, has wrongly burdened the respondent with the obligation to pay interest on the retiral dues.

10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

11. From the Office Notings that have been placed on record by the respondent, it is apparent that, after remaining absent for a long period, on the petitioner rejoining the service, the file was immediately moved for taking a final decision on the treatment to be accorded to the period of leave of the petitioner. The decision could not be taken for want of the Last Pay Certificate that was to be given by the Karol Bagh Zone to the Headquarters and thereafter to the Civil Line Zone and then to the Sadar Paharganj Zone on the movement of the petitioner from one circle to the other. The biometric attendance record was also to be given by the Karol Bagh Zone to the other zonal offices. It has not been brought to our notice how the petitioner would be responsible for the Karol Bagh Zone not forwarding these to the concerned Zones/Departments where the petitioner was later transferred/posted.

12. The non-availability of the above caused a delay in release of the salary due to the petitioner for the period of her absence from the duty, though her leave had been regularised by the respondent itself.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the learned Tribunal has erred in its Impugned Order in observing that the petitioner, being the Bill Drawing Officer, the delay in payment of the salary was attributable to her itself. He submits that the delay had occurred for the above reasons, and in any case, the petitioner was not in the Karol Bagh Zone at the relevant time but had been posted at Sadar Paharganj Zone, where also she was not the bill disbursing authority. He submits that this vital fact has been missed by the learned Tribunal in its Impugned Order. The learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the above position.

14. The learned Tribunal has further noted that the petitioner had submitted her leave application only in July 2014. This is also an error apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as the Office Note dated 15.07.2014 prepared by the UDC (Administration) seeking approval of the treatment to be accorded to the period of leave of the petitioner, itself states that there were as many as 16 applications made by the petitioner for different period of her leave. Some of these applications were also accompanied with the medical certificates, reference to which has been given in the Office Note.