Delhi High Court
State Of Haryana & Anr vs A.C.Aggarwal, Ias (Retd) & Anr on 18 March, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.1855/2010
% Date of Decision: 18.03.2010
State of Haryana & Anr .... Petitioners
Through Mr.Arunabh Choudhury, Mr.Anupam Lal
Das, Mr.Raktim Gogoi and Mr.Gainilung
Panmei, Advocates
Versus
A.C.Aggarwal, IAS (Retd) & Anr .... Respondents
Through Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported YES
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The State of Haryana has challenged the order dated 28th August,
2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A
No.1485/2009 titled as A.C.Aggarwal, IAS (Retd) v. Union of India and Ors
allowing the original application of the respondent No.1 to grant him simple
interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount due to him with a cost
of Rs.5000/-.
The respondent No.1 had filed an original application being O.A
No.1485/2009 praying inter-alia that a direction to State of Haryana be
given to pay simple interest on the amount retained unauthorisedly by them
f rom 27th June, 1999 to 7th October, 2008 at 10% per annum.
The respondent No.1 had contended that he retired from IAS
(Haryana) Cadre on 30th June, 1987 at the age of 58 years and before his
retirement he was Commissioner and Secretary of Government of Haryana.
The respondent no.1 was authorized to draw pension at the rate of
Rs.2709/- plus AR from 1st July, 1987. The respondent No.1's pension was
modified with ef fect from 1st July, 1987 and 1st January, 1996 and on the
recommendation of 6th Pay Commission he was granted pension at the rate
of Rs.23,341/- per month with ef fect from 1st January, 2006.
A fter retirement in 1987 the respondent No.1 had applied for
commutation of 1/3rd of his pension which was allowed by letter dated 28th
January, 1988 when the pension of the respondent No.1 was Rs.2709/- and
an amount of Rs.1,13,344.55/- was paid to him on 5th December, 1988.
A fter the pension of the respondent No.1 was revised from
Rs.2709/- per month to Rs.2906/- the commuted pension payable to the
respondent No.1 became Rs.1,21,503.35/- which was already paid,
therefore, the balance amount of Rs.8,158.80/- was paid to him in 1990.
According to the respondent No.1 commuted pension was to be
restored to him after completion of 70 years of age by him which the
respondent No.1 attained on 27th June, 1999. For this the respondent No.1
relied on the fact that there was no specific provision in All India Services
(Commutation and Pension) Regulations, 1959 regarding the restoration of
the commuted portion of pension of All India Service Pensioners.
Since the commuted portion of the pension of the respondent No.1
on attaining the age of 70 years was not restored, relying on similar cases
also which were pending in Courts, respondent No.1 sought restoration of
his commuted pension. The representation of the respondent no.1 was
however, rejected by the petitioner.
The respondent No.1 challenged the rejection of his representation
for full pension at the age of 70 years and filed an original application being
O.A No.2969/2004 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi which was disposed of by order dated 8th September,
2005 and the pleas of the respondent No.1 were allowed and the
petitioners were directed to release full pension to the respondent No.1
with ef fect from the date he completed 70 years of age. The petitioners
were also directed to pay arrears from the date pension payable, within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of order
dated 8th September, 2005.
The petitioners challenged the order dated 8th September, 2005 by
filing a writ petition being W.P(C) No.3934-35/2006 which was also
dismissed by order dated 19th September, 2007 and the order dated 8th
September, 2005 of the Tribunal was upheld. While dismissing the writ
petition the High Court directed for restoration of pension and release of
arrears of pension within eight weeks from 19th September, 2007.
Despite the specific order dated 19th September, 2007 for
restoration of pension and release of arrears of pension within eight weeks,
the petitioners did not either restore the pension nor released the arrears
of pension entailing filing of a contempt petition. After the contempt
petition was filed the amount was credited in the account of the
respondent No.1 on 7th October, 2008, however, on the amount which was
retained without any justification, no interest was paid.
Since the restoration of the pension and release of arrears was
delayed, the respondent No.1 claimed interest which was also not agreed to
by the petitioners leading to filing of another original application being O.A
No.1485/2009 titled as A.C.Aggarwal, IAS (Retd) v. Union of India which
has been disposed of by the Tribunal holding that the petitioners are liable
to pay simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum and also awarded a
cost of Rs.5000/- on the petitioners and in favor of respondent No.1 which
is challenged by the petitioners in the present petition.
The Tribunal rejected the contention of the petitioners that the
claim of the respondent No.1 was belated. The Tribunal also re ferred to
the case of P.C.Wadhwa who had sought full commutation of pension which
was allowed and the petitioners were also directed to pay interest at the
rate of 18% per annum. The Tribunal also relied on Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation v. M.Krishnaswamy Mudaliar and Anr, A IR 1985 SC 607 holding
that in such circumstances as in the case of respondent No.1, the claim for
payment of interest would be justified.
The Tribunal has categorically held that the petitioners ought
to have granted appropriate amount to the respondent No.1 at their own at
the right time which was not done and there was no justification for the
same. It was further held that the omission on the part of the petitioners
was further compounded when the representations of the respondent no.1
remained unheeded, despite the elaborate order of this High Court that
the interpretation by the petitioners was not in consonance with the rules
and directing the petitioners to pay the full commuted pension and arrears
which was denied on one pretext or the other till October, 2008. The
Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in S.K.Dua v.
State of Haryana and Ors, (2008) 3 SCC holding that even where there is
no specific rule or order providing interest, an employee can claim interest
as the retiral benefits are not in the nature of booty but are the rights of
an employee.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the similar points
as raised before the Tribunal. It is contended that there is no rule to
grant interest. However, it cannot be denied that despite the order of the
High Court upholding the order dated 19th September, 2007 and upholding
the order dated 8th September, 2005 in O.A No.2969/2004 directing
payment of full pension and release of arrears, till October, 2008 the
payments were not made and the payments were made only after a
contempt petition was filed. The amount which was legally due to the
respondent No.1 if was not paid by the petitioners without any valid
justification, the interest at 10% as awarded by the Tribunal cannot be
held to be illegal or based on such irregularity which is liable to be
inter fered by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of I ndia.
The Tribunal on the basis of calculation sheet filed before it has
awarded a total amount of Rs.31,976.33/- which cannot be disputed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners. The Tribunal by order dated 28th
August, 2009 had directed the petitioner to credit the said amount in the
account of the respondent No.1 within two months. The learned counsel for
the petitioner is unable to give any satisfactory reason as to why the order
of the Tribunal dated 28th August, 2009 has not been complied with within
the time granted, as even the present writ petition was filed on 8th March,
2010. In case there was no stay granted by any competent Tribunal and
Court, the order ought to have been complied with. In anticipation of filing
a writ petition, the petitioners could not delay the implementation of the
order. No justifiable and cogent reason has been disclosed for not filing
the writ petition within the time which was granted by the Tribunal for
compliance of order, in case the petitioners wanted to challenge the same.
In the circumstances, it is a fit case where further cost should be imposed
on the petitioners. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost
of Rs.15,000/- which be paid to the respondent No.1 within two weeks. The
amount as awarded by the Tribunal amounting to Rs.31,976.33/- with a cost
of Rs.5,000/- be also credited in the account of the respondent No.1 within
two weeks.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
MARCH 18, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'
