S. Thakran vs Indraprastha Power Generation ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 6948 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) 5986/2013

                                                  Decided on: 18.12.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
S. THAKRAN                                        ..... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr. Vimal Wadhawan, Advocate

                        versus

INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION CO. LTD AND ANR... Respondents

Through: Mr.R.K.Vats, Advocate for R-1/IPGCL Mr. Sumit Chander, Advocate for Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)

1. The petitioner, who was working on the post of PRO with the

respondent No.1/IPGCL, has filed the present petition praying inter alia

for quashing of the suspension order dated 21.11.2012 and the order

dated 26.02.2013 issued by the respondent No.1/IPGCL, whereunder he

was informed that pending the departmental inquiry against him, it was

decided to release only the provisional pension in his favour. The second

relief sought by the petitioner is for issuing directions to the respondents

to pay release his retirement benefits of pension, GPF, gratuity, leave

encashment, commutation etc. as per the rules and the salary for the

period w.e.f. 01.10.2012 to 05.10.2012, alongwith interest.

2. This order is in continuation of the orders dated 25.08.2014 and

01.12.2014.

3. As on date, the issue with regard to payment of pension, GPF,

gratuity, leave encashment, commutation etc. does not survive for the

reason that the said amounts have already been released by the

respondents in favour of the petitioner. The only issue left for

adjudication is the arrears of salary claimed by the petitioner w.e.f.

01.10.2012 to 05.10.2012 and the pension for the period w.e.f.

06.10.2012 to 30.11.2012.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court

to the letter dated 05.10.2012 addressed by the Managing Director of

the respondent No.1/IPGCL to the petitioner. The said letter is a

relieving order in respect of the petitioner, wherein he was informed

that his request for seeking voluntary retirement with immediate effect

had been acceded to by condoning three months' notice period and he

was relieved with effect from 05.10.2012 (Forenoon). Learned counsel

states that it is apparent from the aforesaid relieving letter that the

petitioner had remained on the payrolls of the respondent No.1/IPGCL,

till 05.10.2012. However, his salary for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2012 to

05.10.2012 has not been released and instead, the respondent has paid

him pension for the said period.

5. Mr. Vats, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/IPGCL disputes

the above submission and states that the petitioner was paid the salary

for the months of October and November, 2012 in terms of the

computation enclosed as Annexure R-4 (colly) to the affidavit dated

06.09.2014 (Page 95). As per the aforesaid computation, the respondent

No.1 has treated 27 days of October, 2012 and 20 days of November,

2012 as Dies-non and paid a sum of `32,127/- to the petitioner for the

said period. The explanation offered for releasing the salary to the

petitioner for the months of October and November, 2012 when he had

already been relieved w.e.f. 05.10.2012 is that the relieving order issued

in his favour had been kept in abeyance by the Competent Authority on

account of the fact that the case had not been processed properly and

the said position had been communicated to the petitioner vide letter

dated 02.11.2012, but he did not join the duty and failed to submit a

leave application for the period w.e.f. 05.10.2012 to 30.11.2012.

6. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondent No.1/IPGCL

that vide office order dated 21.11.2012, disciplinary proceedings had

been initiated against the petitioner for alleged financial irregularities

and he was placed under suspension with immediate effect. Thereafter,

when the matter was being processed for taking the disciplinary

proceedings further, the CVC had recommended that the matter be

closed as the petitioner had already been relieved and in its meeting

dated 20.09.2013, the Board of Directors resolved not to take any action

against the petitioner. Resultantly, an order dated 20.10.2013 was

issued by the Competent Authority, conveying the displeasure of the

Board of Directors to the petitioner for his acts of omissions and

commissions.

7. The aforesaid explanation offered by learned counsel for the

respondent No.1 does not justify non-releasing of the salary to the

petitioner for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2012 to 05.10.2012 and nor does it

explain the decision taken by the respondent No.1/IPGCL of treating the

petitioner on its payrolls till 30.11.2012 when a relieving order had

already been issued by the Competent Authority on 05.10.2012. If there

was any procedural impropriety in processing the petitioner's case, then

the fault lies at the door of the respondent No.1/IPGCL and the

petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. In the above circumstances,

the stand taken by the respondent No.1/IPGCL that the petitioner ought

to have joined the duties in terms of the letter dated 02.11.2012 issued

to him or that he did not submit any leave application for the period

w.e.f. 05.10.2012 to 30.11.2012 is found to be misconceived and is

turned down.

8. The right of the petitioner to receive salary for the period from

01.10.2012 to 05.10.2012 and claim pension w.e.f. 6.10.2012 onwards

is upheld. As a result, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent

No.1/IPGCL to re-calculate the salary payable to the petitioner by

treating him on duty till 05.10.2012. Adjustments shall be given for the

amounts already released by the respondent No.1 in favour of the

petitioner under the head of salary for the months of October and

November, 2012 as reflected in the computation attached to the affidavit

dated 6.9.2014. Effective from 6.10.2012, pension shall be payable to

the petitioner for the gap months till 30.11.2012.

9. At this stage, counsel for the respondent No.2 states that the

petitioner was to superannuate on 30.11.2012 but he had been relieved

by the respondent No.1/IPGCL prematurely and therefore his client is

liable to pay the pension to the petitioner only upon his attaining the age

of superannuation and if the respondent No.1/IPGCL had decided to

accede to the petitioner's request for relieving him earlier thereto, then

it is for the IPGCL to release the pension in favour of the petitioner for

the period between 6.10.2012 and 30.11.2012.

10. The aforesaid issue is required to be sorted out between the

respondent No.1/IPGCL and respondent No.2, but in the first instance,

respondent No.1/IPGCL shall release the entire amounts directed above,

to the petitioner. If it is the stand of the respondent No.1/IPGCL that

the pension payable to the petitioner for the period between 6.10.2012

and 30.11.2012 is payable by the respondent No.2, then it shall be at

liberty to recover the same from it as per law. It is further directed that

the respondent No.1/IPGCL will pay the petitioner interest @9% per

annum on the delayed payment of the salary amount and the pension

payable for the period w.e.f. 06.10.2012 till 30.11.2012, as and when

the said amount had become due and payable, till realization. The said

amounts shall be released in favour of the petitioner along with interest

zwithin six weeks from today, failing which interest shall be payable @

12% per annum till the entire amount is realized.

11. The petition is disposed of with litigation costs of `7,500/- imposed

on the respondent No.1/IPGCL. The said amount shall be paid to the

petitioner alongwith the amounts directed above.

                                                    (HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 18, 2014                                      JUDGE
rkb