Ramesh Chander vs Dtc
2010 Latest Caselaw 2427 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI



+                               WP(C) No.3034/2010



%                          Date of Decision: 05.05.2010

Ramesh Chander                                                   .... Petitioner
                        Through Mr. Anil Mittal, Advocate


                                     Versus


DTC                                                       .... Respondent
                        Through Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, 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?                     NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported                    NO
      in the Digest?




ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner, who is a retired employee of DTC has impugned

the order dated 15th January, 2010 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 1330/2009 titled as

Ramesh Chander Vs. DTC, dismissing his Original Application seeking

quashing of order dated 8th October, 2003 and 9th August, 2007.

The petitioner had retired from service of the respondent on

30th June, 2000 and by letter dated 22nd August, 2000, the Provident

Fund amount payable to the petitioner was cleared after adjusting the

amount which the respondent had to deduct from his provident fund

except the loan amount of Rs.40,000/- which was availed by the

petitioner. Since, the petitioner had opted for pension scheme by letter

dated 4th December, 2000, the other unpaid dues of the petitioner such

as bonus, increase in rate of DA etc. were also granted to him on 3rd

July, 2001.

Though, the respondent had taken a loan of Rs. 40,000/- from

his provident fund, however, that amount was not deducted while

clearing the provident fund amount, which was paid to him by letter

dated 22nd August, 2000. The respondents, therefore, demanded refund

of amount of Rs. 40,000/- by communication dated 14th October, 2003.

Since, that amount of Rs. 40,000/-, which was taken as loan was to be

deducted from his provident fund amount, which was not deducted and

was utilized by the petitioner, Interest on the said amount was also

claimed.

The petitioner did not pay the loan amount of Rs. 40,000/ with

interest in lump sum and offered to pay the amount of loan only in

installment but without interest, which was not agreed to by the

respondent and consequently, the amount was started to be deducted

from the pension of the petitioner which was challenged by the

petitioner by filing an Original Application before the Tribunal which

has been dismissed by order dated 15th January, 2010 which is

impugned before this Court.

The Tribunal relied on the fact that the petitioner was unable to

disclose any reason as to why the loan amount of Rs. 40,000/- was not

refunded even in 2003, when the demand was made. It was also relied

on by the Tribunal that the petitioner had retired in 2000 and in

August, 2000, the amount of provident fund was given to him without

deducting the loan amount of Rs. 40,000/-. The Tribunal also noticed

that on the amount, which was credited in the provident fund account

of the petitioner, the interest was paid by the respondent. Though, the

discrepancy was detected and communicated to the petitioner in 2003,

however, he failed to pay the loan amount and interest thereon.

Since, the aforesaid loan amount has been used by the

petitioner from 2000, the Tribunal has held that he is also liable to pay

interest on delayed payment and the decision of the authorities to

charge interest from the petitioner cannot be faulted. The learned

counsel for the petitioner has very emphatically contended that the

petitioner was not aware of non deduction loan amount from his

provident fund amount on his retirement. This, however, cannot be

believed in the present facts and circumstances.

The amount of Rs. 40,000/- taken as a loan was not refundable

and was to be adjusted from his provident fund amount. Even if, the

petitioner was not aware of not deducting the amount of non-refundable

loan, the fact that this amount has been utilized by the petitioner from

August, 2000 cannot be denied. If the petitioner has utilized the

amount of Rs. 40,000/-, he is liable to pay the interest. Had the

petitioner paid the amount of Rs. 40,000/- in 2003 which was

demanded after the mistake was detected, which amount was not

deducted in year 2000, the plea of non-payment of interest on the said

amount in year 2003 could be considered. However, even till the time

the amount is adjusted in installment from his pension, the amount

was not paid by the petitioner and was utilized by him and in the

circumstances, the petitioner cannot contend that he is not liable to pay

interest on the amount of loan which was availed by him and has been

utilized.

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality or

irregularity or any perversity in the order of the Tribunal so as to

interfere with the order of Tribunal impugned in this writ petition. The

writ petition is therefore, without any merit and it is, therefore,

dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

MAY 05, 2010                                  MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'