Union Of India vs M.R.Chitriva
2017 Latest Caselaw 2678 Bom

212-J-WP-960-02                                                                              1/3


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                          WRIT PETITION NO.960 OF 2002

Union of India 
Through Divisional Railway Manager, 
South Eastern Railway, Nagpur.                                  ... Petitioner. 

-vs- 

M. R. Chitriva
Retired C.T.I./S.E. Rly. 
29, C. G. Padole Layout, 
Deendayal Nagar. 
Nagpur 440022.                                                  ... Respondent. 


Shri Z. S. Shekhani, Advocate h/f Shri R. G. Agrawal, Advocate for petitioner.

                                                  CORAM  : B.P.DHARMADHIKAR &
                                                             Z. A. HAQ, JJ. 

DATE : May 30, 2017

Oral Judgment : (Per Z. A. Haq, J.)

The petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal by which the claim of the respondent-employee for

interest on the delayed payment of commuted pension and gratuity is upheld

by the Tribunal.

02. The respondent employee approached the Tribunal with the

grievance that after he sought voluntary retirement with effect from

25/05/1999 he should have been paid all the dues within three months

however there was delay of about two months in payment of provident fund,

212-J-WP-960-02 2/3

pension commutation and DCRG and delay of about four months in payment

of leave salary and NGIS.

The petitioner refuted the claim of the respondent-employee on

the ground that in case of voluntary retirement it was not bound to make the

payment within three months as claimed by the petitioner.

03. After considering the rival contentions and the circular R.B.E

No.93/94, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner was required to make

the payment within three months from the date of retirement of the

respondent-employee and having failed to do so, the petitioner was liable to

pay interest and granted relief to the respondent-employee as directed by the

impugned order.

04. Before this Court the petitioner has relied on the letter dated

15/04/1991 issued by the Railway Board to contend that in case of

retirement other than on superannuation the payment is required to be made

within six months and the employee would be entitled for interest only if the

payment is made beyond six months.

05. We find that the above referred letter was not produced before

the Tribunal and there is no explanation why the same was not produced

before the Tribunal. In paragraph 6 of the impugned order the Tribunal has

212-J-WP-960-02 3/3

relied on the circular R.B.E. No.93/94 issued by the Central Government in

which it is laid down that where the payment of DCRG has been delayed

beyond three months from the date of retirement, interest should be paid to

the retired employee or his dependent. It is stated that this order would be

effected from 25/08/1994. Though the Tribunal has relied on this letter to

uphold the claim of the employee for interest, the petitioner has not raised

any ground in the petitioner before this Court to urge that the Tribunal has

committed any error in relying on the circular R. B. E. No.93/94.

06. Considering the nature of claim of the respondent-employee and

the conclusions of the Tribunal, we find that it cannot be said that there is

any irregularity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The

submissions made on behalf of the petitioner relying on the letter of Railway

Board dated 15/04/1991 cannot be considered as this letter was not

produced before the Tribunal and there is no explanation for this lapse on

the part of the petitioner. In the above facts we are not inclined to interfere

with the impugned order.

07. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear there own cost.

                                                       JUDGE                JUDGE
Asmita