Telangana High Court
Ch. Esther Madhulatha vs Board Of Governors, Tsswreis, Hyd. And 3 ... on 5 January, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.32695 OF 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:
"....to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein in not paying the compensation with interest for the abnormal delay of 2 years period in settlement of retirement benefits i.e., pension, gratuity and pension commutation etc., on total payable amount @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 01.10.2015 to upto the said amounts credited in the petitioner's Andhra Bank Account till
02.08.2017, the intentional abnormal delay caused financial loss, humiliation and other difficulties as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein to pay the compensation with interest for the abnormal delay in settlement of retirement benefits as per Section 7(3)(3a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972".
2. Heard Sri G.Jonathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Mr. N.Bhoopal Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
3. The brief facts leading to filing the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was one of the senior most principal worked in respondents Society for a period of 33 years. While the petitioner was working as principal of A.P.Social Welfare 2 LNA, J W.P. No.32695 of 2017 Residential School and Jr.College for Girls consisting total of 630 students, at Narsingi, R.R.District, an unsocial bad element has managed to publish fabricated news item with mala fide intention against the petitioner in the year 2006 and the respondents Society placed the petitioner under suspension for a period of six months vide proceedings No.Prl/Estt./15706/ 2006 dated 22.07.2006 and awarded a minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect vide Proceedings No.Prl/Estt./2912/2005 dated 19.04.2007.
4. The petitioner filed an appeal on 17.07.2007 to the respondents Society and the respondents Society vide proceedings No.PRl/Estt./706/2006, dated 15.07.2008 had withdrawn the punishment with warning. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation dated 30.10.2008 to respondent No.4 for release of increment and to treat the suspension period as on duty, however, respondent No.4 without taking into consideration the said representation, issued proceedings vide Rc.No.Estt/15706/2006, dated 03.12.2008 justifying suspension. The petitioner had submitted several representations dated 08.07.2009, 09.12.2013, 12.05.2014 and 18.11.2014 to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, but there was no response from the respondents. 3
LNA, J W.P. No.32695 of 2017
5. It is contended that basing on the direction of Hon'ble Chief Minister, dated 27.02.2009, respondent No.2 circulated the file for consideration of the petitioner's case vide endorsement No.987/MSW & (R & B)/2013 dated 16.01.2014. Consequently, respondent No.3 had issued orders to respondent No.4 for detailed report along with specific remarks of the petitioner's case to Government, but respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not circulated the file. Respondent No.4 has not properly dealt with the file and also ordered to 'lodge the file till further orders'. After five years, respondent No.4 had intimated the petitioner that his case, was not considered vide proceedings No.T/Dis/zone-VI/Prl.Estt/15706/2006, dated 08.07.2015.
6. Aggrieved by the proceedings No.T/Dis/zone-VI/Prl.Estt/ 15706/2006, dated 08.07.2015, the petitioner filed W.P.No.32446 of 2015 to set aside and drop charges and period of suspension to be treated as on duty and also settlement of retirement benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.04.2016 with a direction to the respondents to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner i.e., 25.07.2006 to 02.02.2007 as on duty with all the consequential benefits and also to settle all retirement, terminal benefits of the petitioner.
4
LNA, J W.P. No.32695 of 2017
7. Pursuant to the above orders, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 25.04.2016 and also met the respondents personally. Consequently, the respondents issued proceedings No.T/Dis/Z-VI/1664/2015 dated 03.06.2016 for regularization of the suspension period of the petitioner as on duty. However, the respondents did not settle the retirement benefits of the petitioner despite repeated requests made by the petitioner. The petitioner made another representation on 09.03.2017 to the respondents to implement the orders of this Court, dated 18.04.2016 passed in W.P.No.32446 of 2015. As the respondents failed to implement the orders of this Court, the petitioner filed C.C.No.900 of 2017 to punish respondent Nos.3 and 4 for willful disobedience of orders of this Court, dated 18.04.2016. After filing contempt case, the respondents prepared the pension papers and sent the same to Accountant General for sanction of pension, gratuity and pension commutation and this Court closed the contempt case vide order dated 14.07.2017.
8. It is further contented that the pension amount of Rs.36,39,925/- was credited to the petitioner's account on 02.08.2017 and earned leave encashment was paid after one and half years from the date of retirement. It is further 5 LNA, J W.P. No.32695 of 2017 contended that many colleagues of the petitioner and other employees of the respondents Society were paid retirement benefits immediately of their superannuation, however, the petitioner was discriminated and the retirement benefits were paid after abnormal delay of two years. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible for compensation along with interest as per Section 7(3)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Hence, the writ petition.
9. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments:
1) State of UP and Others Vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh 1;
2) State of Kerala Vs. M.Padmanaban 2;
3) V.K.Singh Vs. Punbaj national Bank 3;
4) Ch.Rama Rao Vs. Government of A.P 4;
5) O.P.Gupta vs. Union of India and others 5;
6) G.Venkati Vs. State of Telangana and others 6.
10. Respondent No.4 has filed counter affidavit and contended that the petitioner, who was working as a Principal at 1 (2017) 1 SCC 49 2 (1985) 1 SCC (L and S) 278 3 (2013) 3 SCC 472 4 2014 (2) ALD 26 (DB) 5 (1987) 4 SCC 328 6 2023 (3)ALD 656 (TS) 6 LNA, J W.P. No.32695 of 2017 A.P.Social Welfare Residential School and Junior College, was placed under suspension on 22.07.2006 on the ground that she failed to take immediate measures for maintenance of clean and hygienic conditions in the school premises, due to which, nearly 50 to 60 students were affected in the school with symptoms of Chikungunya. Therefore, proceedings were initiated and finalized against the petitioner basing on the report of respondent No.4-Society and the petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect vide Rc.No.Prl.Estt/2912/2005.
11. On appeal by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority set aside the punishment and issued warning vide Rc.No. Prl.Estt/15706/2006, dated 15.07.2008. Further, the request of the petitioner to treat the suspension period as on duty was not considered by respondent No.4 vide Rc.No.Prl.Estt/15706/ 2006, dated 15.07.2008 and respondent No.4 informed the petitioner to apply for eligible leave for her suspension period vide Rc.No.T/Dis/Z-VI/Prl.Estt/15706/2006, Dtd.08.07.20015. However, the petitioner approached this Court vide W.P.No.32446 of 2015 and this Court vide its order dated 18.04.2016, directed the respondents to treat the suspension period as on duty. Accordingly, respondent No.4 Society 7 LNA, J W.P. No.32695 of 2017 regularized the suspension period as on duty vide Rc.No.T/Dis/ Z-VI/1664/2015, dated 03.06.2016. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.4 delayed the implementation of the order of this Court on suspension period is factually incorrect.
12. It is further contended that the petitioner submitted pension papers of part-I(A) for sanction of provisional pension on 30.01.2016 and upon receipt of the pension papers, the file was sent to all concerned sections for remarks on 08.02.2016 and after receipt of remarks, proposal for provisional pension was forwarded to Accountant General on 20.04.2016 and the same was authorized on 24.05.2016. It is further contended that the petitioner failed to submit her pension papers in due time, but submitted the same on 02.01.2017. After due verification from all concerned sections, petitioner's pension papers were forwarded to Accountant General with a request to adjust the provisional pension already sanctioned vide letter dated 11.04.2017. The Accountant General had authorized the service pension gratuity and commutation on 24.05.2017. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the respondents in sanction of provisional pension to the petitioner. The delay in 8 LNA, J W.P. No.32695 of 2017 sanction of provisional and final pension is only due to late submission of pension papers in Part-I by the petitioner.
13. It is also contended that C.C.No.900 of 2017 was closed as the interim orders of this Court were implemented prior to filing of contempt case and the provisional pension was granted on 24.05.2016, which is prior to filing of contempt case. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted revised pension papers for sanction of service pension on 02.01.2017 and the same was sanctioned by Accountant General on 24.05.2017.
14. It is contended that as per service register of the petitioner, there were certain omissions of entries in service register, such as, absent period i.e., from 21.04.1992 to 19.10.1993, which is treated as EOL, but the increments are not postponed to the extent of above EOL period and further, increments were sanctioned erroneously on 20.10.1993 and also additionally, further increment was sanctioned on 01.10.1994. The increments sanctioned on 01.12.1996 and 01.12.1997 were cancelled due to punishment and the recoveries of the above sanctioned increments were not recorded in the service register. Therefore, the suspension period of the petitioner from 24.07.2006 to 05.02.2007 is not settled and 9 LNA, J W.P. No.32695 of 2017 further increments were also sanctioned without regularizing the suspension period. Moreover, the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment awarded on 19.04.2007 is not implemented. Beside the entries of RPS (Revised Pay Scale) 2015 w.e.f 01.07.2013 were also not recorded in the service register.
15. It is further contended that generally, the pension papers were supposed to be submitted well in advance before the retirement, whereas, the petitioner failed to submit pension papers in advance and submitted the pension papers of part-I(A) for sanction of provisional pension on 30.01.2016. Therefore, the delay in sanction of final pension as well as retirement benefits is only due to delay on the part of the petitioner and as such, the contention of the petitioner for grant of interest is not justified.
16. The respondents in support of their contention relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Tamilnadu in the case of Dr.Nadanam Vs. The Registrar, Tamilnadu Agricultural University, wherein, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition, which was filed to claim interest at the rate of 12% per annum for delay in sanction of pension 10 LNA, J W.P. No.32695 of 2017 amount observing that for sanction of pension, there was delay in submissions of pension papers. Therefore, the respondents have prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
Consideration:
17. Now, the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum for delayed period in release of retirement benefits and compensation claimed under Section 7(3)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
18. There is no dispute with regard to suspension of petitioner while she was working as principal in respondents' Society and treating the suspension period from 25.07.2006 to 02.02.2007 as on duty in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 18.04.2016 passed in W.P.No.32446 of 2015.
19. The grievance of the petitioner is that the retirement benefits were released two years after his retirement only on regular persuasions and representations. Further contention of the petitioner is that the other employees in the respondents' Society and her colleagues were paid retirement benefits 11 LNA, J W.P. No.32695 of 2017 immediately after their retirement, however, she is discriminated deliberately by the respondent Society.
20. On the other hand, the respondents contended that there is a delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting the pension papers belatedly and that there is no delay or inaction on the part of the respondents in forwarding the pension papers to the Accountant General and that the delay cannot be attributable to the respondents. It is further contended that generally the pension papers were supposed to file well in advance before the retirement to enable the respondents to process the same through various departments and send to Accountant General in advance for release of pension benefits immediately on retirement of the employees.
21. On perusal of the records, it shows that the petitioner retired from service on 01.10.2015 and submitted the pension papers on 30.01.2016 and the same were referred to general section, Zone-VI, discipline section and to account-I section on 08.02.2016 and a note was issued to Superintendent of Zone- VI, with certain omissions on 04.03.2016. Further, a letter was addressed on 20.04.2016 to Accountant General by respondent No.4 for verification report and sanction of provisional pension 12 LNA, J W.P. No.32695 of 2017 since the petitioner suspension period was not settled. On 02.06.2016, respondent No.4 received authorization for provisional pension from Accountant General. On 03.06.2016, orders dated 18.04.2016 of this Court passed in W.P.No.32446 of 2015, were implemented and the suspension period was treated as on duty. Thereafter, on 28.06.2016 U.O.Note was issued for settlement of suspension period. The petitioner had submitted application for service pension on 30.01.2016 and the same was processed by respondent No.4 and the file was sent to Accountant General for sanction of pension benefits. On 24.05.2017, respondent No.4 received authorization for pension gratuity and commutation from Accountant General. Finally, the pension with arrears, gratuity and commutation was credited to the petitioner's account on 02.08.2017.
22. From the above sequence of events, it is clear that the suspension period of the petitioner was treated as on duty vide proceedings dated 02.06.2016 in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 18.04.2016, passed in W.P.No.32446 of 2015, however, retirement benefits were not paid to the petitioner. Only after filing Contempt Case, the pension papers were sent to the Accountant General for approval and thereafter, the pension benefits and other retirement benefits were credited to 13 LNA, J W.P. No.32695 of 2017 the petitioner's account on 02.08.2017. Thus, there is a delay of 14 months in crediting the pension, retirement benefits of the petitioner by the respondents. However, the respondents have tried to justify the delay on the ground of processing of pension papers and also attributing the delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting the pension papers belatedly and that there are no latches and delay on the part of the respondents.
23. In Dr.Uma Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and another 7, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"5. We have referred in sufficient detail to the Rules and instructions which prescribe the time-schedule for the various steps to be taken in regard to the payment of pension and other retiral benefits. This we have done to remind the various governmental departments of their duties in initiating various steps at least two years in advance of the date of retirement. If the Rules/instructions are followed strictly, much of the litigation can be avoided and retired government servants will not feel harassed because after all, grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the government servant. The Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the court can certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the Rules/instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case.
6. The case before us is a clear example of departmental delay which is not excusable. The petitioner retired on 30-4- 1993 and it was only after 12-2-1996 when an interim order was passed in this writ petition that the respondents woke up and started work by sending a special messenger to 7 (1999) 3 SCC 438 14 LNA, J W.P. No.32695 of 2017 various places where the petitioner had worked. Such an exercise should have started at least in 1991, two years before retirement. The amounts due to the petitioner were computed and the payments were made only during 1997-
98. The petitioner was a cancer patient and was indeed put to great hardship. Even assuming that some letters were sent to the petitioner after her retirement on 30-3-1993 seeking information from her, an allegation which is denied by the petitioner, that cannot be an excuse for the lethargy of the Department inasmuch as the Rules and instructions require these actions to be taken long before retirement. The exercise which was to be completed long before retirement was in fact started long after the petitioner's retirement.
7. Therefore, this is a fit case for awarding interest to the petitioner. We do not think that for the purpose of the computation of interest, the matter should go back. Instead, on the facts of this case, we quantify the interest payable at Rs.1 lakh and direct that the same shall be paid to the petitioner within two months from today."
24. In O.P.Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"24. Normally, this Court, as a settled practice, has been making direction for payment of interest at 12 per cent on delayed payment of pension. There is no reason for us to depart from that practice in the facts of the present case."
25. In G.Venkati (supra), the learned single Judge of this Court held as under:
"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 i.e., 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. ..."
26. The facts in Dr.Nadanam (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents, are distinguishable to the facts 15 LNA, J W.P. No.32695 of 2017 in the present case. Therefore, the said decision does not come to the aid of the respondents.
27. In the light of facts, circumstances and above discussion, in considered opinion of this Court, petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed payment of pension from the date of submission of pension papers i.e., 30.01.2016 till the date of credit to the petitioner's account i.e., 02.08.2017.
28. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the delayed period i.e., from 30.01.2016 till the date of credit i.e., 02.08.2017 to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
29. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 05.01.2024 Dua/kkm 16 LNA, J W.P. No.32695 of 2017 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO.32695 OF 2017 Date: 05.01.2024 dua/kkm