Uoi And Anr. vs Ram Avtar Singh Gothwal
2011 Latest Caselaw 2351 Del

$~50
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+       W.P.(C) 2853/2011

                                             Date of order: 2nd May, 2011

        UOI AND ANR.                                  ..... Petitioners
                               Through Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocate.

                          versus

        RAM AVTAR SINGH GOTHWAL                         ..... Respondent
                     Through Nemo.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE 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 ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

        Union of India has assailed the orders dated 15th March,

2010      and      31st     August,   2010    passed     by     the     Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (tribunal, for

short) directing that the petitioner should pay interest @ 12% per

annum to the respondent on belated payment of the retirement

dues.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted the delay

in payment of retirement dues but submits that the delay was

caused because the petitioner did not received full contribution
W.P. (C) No. 2853/2011                                        Page 1 of 3
 from the Centre for Railway Information Systems (CRIS). It is

further submitted that the full amount was not paid because of

revision of pay under the Sixth Pay Commission and, therefore,

the amounts deposited by CRIS were found to be less.

3.      We are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by

the tribunal as admittedly there has been delay in payment of

retirement benefits by ten months, which is substantially long.

The respondent had worked with the petitioner from 17th

December, 1998 till 26th July, 2005 when he joined CRIS on

deputation as Assistant Manager.        On 16th June, 2008, the

respondent had submitted technical resignation to the petitioner

which was accepted on 10th July, 2008 and the respondent was

permanently absorbed in CRIS with effect from 15th July, 2008.

The respondent had to make a number of representations and

even applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 why and

for what reason the retirement benefits were not paid.           The

petitioner repeatedly replied that the retirement benefits shall be

paid within three months but these were paid belatedly on 18th

May, 2009 and 24th May, 2009. Even if it is presumed that there

was some delay/default by CRIS, this is an internal matter which

the petitioner has to take up with CRIS. The respondent cannot

W.P. (C) No. 2853/2011                             Page 2 of 3
 be held responsible and liable for the same.       Moreover, the

petitioner should have verified the amount, which has been

submitted by CRIS. If there was any shortfall, steps should have

been immediately taken. The respondent cannot suffer because

of lack of communication or fault of the petitioner or for that

matter even CRIS. Interest has been awarded to compensate

the respondent for loss suffered by him due to belated payment

of the retirement benefits.

4.      We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned

orders passed by the tribunal and accordingly the writ petition is

dismissed.



                                         SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE

MAY 02, 2011 VKR