Delhi High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Rattan Singh [Along With W.P.(C) ... on 15 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: 139 (2007) DLT 629
Author: M Mudgal
Bench: M Mudgal, A Suresh
JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing.
2. The facts of only the present Writ Petition that is i.e. Writ Petition (Civil) No.8201-02/2006 are being taken up in this judgment for disposing of all the connected Writ Petitions being Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1607/2005, 8226-27/2006, 8642-43/2006, 8696-97/2006, 8707-08/2006, 8709-10/2006 and 8711-12/2006.
3. This Writ Petition challenges the order dated 29th July, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No(s).1885/2003, 1886/2003, 1887/2003, 1888/2003, 1889/2003, 1890/2003, 1891/2003 and 1892/2003 filed by the Respondents who were the members of the running staff category of Railway employees. The case of the Respondents was that the basic pay in the scale (effective from 1.1.1996) has to be fixed at the stage next above in the revised scale of pay by taking into account the following components of pay:
(a) Existing basic pay;
(b) Actual D.A. drawn as on 1.1.1996 (at index level 1510);
(c) First installment of interim Relief;
(d) Second installment of Interim Relief; and
(e) Add 40% of basic pay.
4. It is not in dispute that in this group of Writ Petitions all the Respondents retired between 01.01.1996 to 30.09.1996 and are obviously today at an advanced age.
5. The Respondents accordingly sought the relief in the above terms based on the Central Fifth Pay Commission which was made in 1997. The Railway Board issued a Circular on 26.02.2004 accepting the contentions of the Respondents and granted them the benefits claimed by them above.
6. The only dispute now pertains to 9% interest ordered on the delayed payment of arrears. During the course of the hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on 26th July, 2006.
During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that payment was to be made in terms of circular dated 29th October, 1999. She submits that petitioners did not pay the arrears of pension due from 1.1.1996 till the year 2004 on the alleged ground that clarification came about on 26th February, 2004. Counsel for the respondent submits that clarification in fact was superfluous. Petitioners have themselves implemented and made payments in terms of the circular dated 29th October, 1999. Without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties, it has been put to the respondents whether considering that payment has been made in terms of the circular dated 29th October, 1999, it would be reasonable to implement the same and payment of pension should have been made by 1st January, 2000. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it has been put to the respondent whether respondents may not claim interest on pension prior to 1.1.200. Counsel for the petitioner also wishes to seek instructions in this regard. Representative of the petitioner who is in a position to take a decision be present on the next date of hearing.
7. The Respondents had accordingly agreed to forego the interest for the period prior to 1st January, 2000. However, the Petitioner Railway Board has unfortunately declined to accept the suggestions made by this Court.
8. In this view of the matter, we are required to deal with the matter on merits.
9. Since the Railway Board's Circular of 26th February, 2004 was based on the Fifth Pay Commission's Report which was rendered in the year 1997 and that the payment eventually made on the basis of the circular dated 29th October, 1999, the delay is entirely attributable to the Railway Board itself. No proper explanation is forthcoming for the delay in implementing the Pay Commission's Report.
10. In this view of the matter the amount of 9% interest to the Respondents who have retired as far back as a decade ago in the year 1996 can not be said to be excessive under any circumstances warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. The arrears covered by the CAT's judgment shall be released not later than 31st March, 2007 to the Respondents failing which the interest payable shall be paid at the rate of 12 % per annum.
12. The Writ Petitions accordingly stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the judgment be placed in all the connected matters.
dusty.
