Delhi High Court

Dhyan Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others on 1 June, 2011

Author: Sanjiv Khanna

                                                            REPORTABLE

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             WRIT PETITON (CIVIL) NO. 4941 OF 2002

                              Reserved on : 11th May, 2011.
%                             Date of Decision : 1st June, 2011.

DHYAN SINGH                               .... Petitioner
             Through Dr. J.C. Vashista, Advocate.
                   VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS           .....Respondents

Through Nemo.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

The petitioner, Dhyan Singh, retired as the Principal of

Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Rana Pratap Bagh,

Delhi on 28th February, 1999. He filed O.A. No. 2530/2000 on

account of non-payment of his pension, gratuity, etc. The

aforesaid O.A. along with application for amendment M.A. No.

971/2001 have been disposed of by the impugned order dated

28th September, 2001. In the said order, the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the tribunal,

for short) records that payment of provisional pension was

directed by the tribunal vide their order dated 19th March, 2001

passed in M.A. No. 592/2001. The impugned order directs that

the respondents would pay interest @ 15% per annum on the

delayed payment of provisional pension for the period 1st March,

1999 up to the date of actual payment of the arrears of

provisional pension. The impugned order further records that

the petitioner would be paid interest on the Group Provident

Fund as per the applicable rates for the months of June and

July, 1999, as interest upto May, 1999 had already been paid.

There is no dispute about the aforesaid directions and the

respondents have accepted the order of the tribunal. It may be

noted here that the petitioner has been paid provisional pension

as he is facing prosecution in a criminal case instituted by

Parent Teachers Association on the allegation that he had

misbehaved with a student, who was paraded naked. It appears

that the said prosecution is still pending.

2. The grievance of the petitioner against the impugned order

is limited and is restricted to interest on two accounts; (1) the

petitioner was paid leave encashment of Rs.92,182/- on 19th

June, 2001. The tribunal has awarded interest @ 15% per

annum from January, 2000 to 30th May, 2001. The petitioner

claims that he should be paid interest from the date of his

retirement, i.e., 1st March, 1999 till December, 1999 and (b) the

petitioner was paid Group Insurance of Rs.33,704/- on 19th

June, 2000 but the tribunal has refused to grant interest for the

period between 1st March, 1999 to 24th May, 2001.

3. The tribunal has denied interest on Group Insurance for

the following reasons:-

"10. Payment of insurance money requires submission of pre-receipted bill by the applicant. According to the respondents, the aforesaid bill was submitted by the applicant on 29.3.2001 and the amount involved (Rs.33704) was paid vide cheque dated 24.5.2001. I have no reason to disbelieve the respondents in regard to the date on which the aforesaid pre-receipted bill was submitted by the applicant. There has not been any undue delay thereafter inasmuch as the financial sanction for the payment of insurance money was issued within a month thereafter, i.e., on 28.4.2001. I am, therefore, not inclined to direct payment of interest on this amount."

4. It is apparent from the above that the tribunal held that the

petitioner should have given a pre-receipt bill and as he had

delayed submission of the pre-receipt bill, interest should not be

awarded. The aforesaid reasoning of the tribunal does not merit

acceptance in view of paragraph 11.1 at page 27 of Swamy‟s

1980 Edition on Compilation of Central Government Group

Employees Insurance Scheme, 1980, which reads as under:

"11.1: If an „employee‟ retires on attaining the age of superannuation or

otherwise ceases to be in Central Government Service and his service book discloses that he has been in the member of the „Scheme‟, the Head of Office shall issue a sanction for the payment of the member‟s accumulation in the Savings Fund after obtaining a simple application in Form No. 4.

FORM NO. 4 of page 62 & 63 of Swamy‟s Compilation on Group Insurance Schemes for Central Government Employees and Union Territory Government Employees -

Annexure R-2"

5. The aforesaid paragraph clearly states that it is for the

Head of the Office to issue sanction for payment of the

member‟s accumulation in the savings fund after obtaining a

simple application in form No. 4. Therefore, it was the obligation

on the Head of the Office to get the necessary formalities

completed. In this connection, we may notice that the petitioner

had submitted before the tribunal and has submitted before us

that he had submitted pension papers to the respondents on 7th

July, 1998. However, these were returned as the respondent

maintained that these should be submitted in November-

December, 1998 since vigilance clearance was required. These

were re-submitted in December, 1998 but were again returned

by the respondents that these should be re-submitted in

February, 1999. The petitioner had submitted these papers on

26th February, 1999 but no action was taken. In case a pre-

receipt bill was required to be submitted by the petitioner, the

respondents should have informed and indicated the same to

the petitioner. There was no lapse or fault on the part of the

petitioner and the delay in submitting the pre-receipt bill was

because the respondents did not ask the petitioner to submit the

same. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to interest @ 15%

per annum on Rs.33,704/- from 1st March, 1999 till the date on

which the payment was made, i.e., 24th May, 2001.

6. Interest on leave encashment for the period between 1st

March, 1999 till 31st December, 1999 has been rejected by the

tribunal for the following reason:

"11. Leave encashment was sanctioned according to the respondents on 24.4.2001. This amount could be paid only after the verification of the service record, in particular, after completion of the service book. For various reasons, service book could be completed only by the end of December, 1999. The applicant is also responsible for the delay thus incurred. The amount of leave encashment, as stated, could be paid only thereafter. The respondents have, however, taken a long enough time for sanctioning leave encashment and making payment thereof. The amount in question has been sanctioned on 24.4.2001 and paid vide cheque dated 30.5.2001. In the circumstances, there is, in my view, sufficient justification for payment of interest on leave encashment amount from January, 2000 to 30.5.2001 @ 15% which I have

already directed to be paid in respect of arrears of provisional pension."

7. In an earlier portion of the order, the tribunal has referred

to the contention of the respondents on the question of service

book. The said portion which records the contention of the

respondents, reads as under:

"4............Further, the applicant took his service book personally to G.B.S.S. School, Bawana for its completion along with the office letter dated 24.2.1999. He failed to get the service book completed and, therefore, the respondents had to make special efforts to get back his service back(sic) duly completed. At long last, the applicant‟s service book was received on 20.12.1999......"

8. In spite of the aforesaid contention and defence of the

respondents, the tribunal has allowed the original application

and has directed payment of interest on provisional pension

from 1st March, 1999 to the date of actual payment of arrears of

provisional pension. Thus, there is a contradiction in the order

of the tribunal. Interest had been awarded on belated payment

of provisional pension, in spite of the contention of the

respondents that the service book was taken by the petitioner for

completion and was not returned after it was duly completed.

However, while examining the question of payment of interest on

leave encashment, the same ground and reason has been

upheld and applied to deny interest. The order of the tribunal

awarding interest on belated payment of provisional pension has

been accepted by the respondents. We also find that under the

relevant rules, leave encashment had to be calculated and paid

suo motu by the respondents. The petitioner in this connection

has referred to Rule 139 (2)(a) of CCS Leave Rules, 1972,

which reads as under:

"139. Leave/Cash payment in lieu of leave beyond the date of retirement, compulsory retirement or quitting of service.-

(2)(a) Where a Government servant retires on attaining the normal age prescribed for retirement under the terms and conditions governing his service, the authority competent to grant leave shall suo motu issue an order granting cash equivalent of leave salary for [earned] leave, if any, at the credit of the Government servant on the date of his retirement, subject to a maximum of 300 days."

9. In terms of the said Rule, the leave encashment should

have been paid by the respondents themselves and did not

require any effort or steps to be taken by the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner will be entitled to interest on the leave

encashment amount of Rs. 92,192/- from 1st March, 1999 till 31st

December, 1999 @ 15% per annum.

10. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated

that several amounts are to be recovered from the petitioner on

account of licence fee, etc. It is stated that even after

adjustment, a balance of Rs.83,243/- was to be recovered from

the petitioner. The said counter affidavit was filed on 9th

November, 2005. The interest amount now awarded to the