Delhi High Court
Government Of Nct Of Dlehi vs Sk Srivastava on 29 February, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 29.02.2012
+ W.P.(C) 1186/2012
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DLEHI ... Petitioner
versus
SK SRIVASTAVA ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr V. K. Tandon
For the Respondent : None
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CM 2570/2012
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
WP(C) 1186/2012 & CM 2448/2012
1. The petitioner (Government of NCT of Delhi) has filed this writ
petition in respect of the order dated 25.03.2011 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 2861/2010.
The only point urged before us is with regard to the interest that has been
directed to be paid by the Tribunal on the amount of leave encashment due
to the respondent. The same was due to the respondent on 31.12.2000,
which is the date of his retirement. But, the same was not paid to him till
2011, that is, after the passing of the impugned order. The leave
encashment amount, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, had
been withheld because the respondent was under suspension at the time of
his retirement.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Rule 39
(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, which reads as under:-
"(3) The authority competent to grant leave may withhold whole
or part of cash equivalent of earned leave in the case of a
Government servant who retires from service on attaining the
age of retirement while under suspension or while disciplinary
or criminal proceedings are pending against him, if in the view
of such authority there is a possibility of some money becoming
recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against
him. On conclusion of the proceedings, he will become eligible
to the amount so withheld after adjustment of Government dues,
if any."
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to point out any
such order of the competent authority whereunder the said leave encashment
had been withheld. In fact, there is also no order of the competent authority
indicating that there was any possibility of some money becoming
recoverable from the respondent on the conclusion of the proceedings. As
pointed out above, there is no order of the competent authority withholding
the leave encashment amount which was due to the respondent nor was
there any finding of the said competent authority as to whether there was a
possibility of some money becoming recoverable from the respondent on
the conclusion of the proceedings against him.
3. Consequently, the Tribunal is right in coming to the conclusion that
the leave encashment amount ought not to have been withheld. It is in these
circumstances that the Tribunal has directed that the leave encashment
amount along with other amounts, which were due to the respondent, ought
to be paid to the respondent along with interest at the GPF rate.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that all other dues had
been paid to the respondent along with interest at the GPF rate, but since
there was no provision in the leave rules for grant of interest, that is why the
present petition has been filed. We do not agree with the submission made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because there are no rules
providing for grant of interest, the respondent would not be entitled to the
same. There is also no bar to the grant of interest whenever the leave
encashment amount is delayed for no fault on the part of the employee. The
government has retained the money from the year 2000 till 2011, which, in
any event, was due to the respondent in the year 2000 itself, particularly in
view of the fact that even the conditions specified in Rule 39(3) had not
been complied with. Consequently, grant of interest on the said amount at
the GPF rate by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. In any event, we may also
point out that between 2000 and 2011, because of inflation, the real value of
the amount that was due to the respondent had substantially eroded, the
payment of interest at the GPF rate would only be a kind of balm applied to
the injury suffered by the respondent. It may, in fact, actually turn out that
the petitioner would not be paying anything more in real terms than what it
was liable to pay in the year 2000.
5. For all these reasons, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is
ordered accordingly. However, the petitioner is granted four weeks time to
make the payment of the interest on the leave encashment amount at the
GPF rate.
Dasti.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
SR
