Delhi High Court
Jai Bhagwan Nandal vs South Delhi Municipal ... on 4 December, 2015
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11269/2015
% Date of Judgment : 04.12.2015
JAI BHAGWAN NANDAL ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. I. S. Dahiya, Advocate.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR
..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Ms. Anju
Gupta and Mr. Atul Bansal,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 29453-54/2015
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 11269/2015
3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 23.09.2014 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal which was subsequently
modified on 08.02.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is only aggrieved by the direction contained in the
order by which only 6% interest has been granted.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had
superannuated in October, 2012. Thereafter he has been running from
pillar to post for his retiral benefits including leave encashment,
pension, pension commutation, GPF, ACP / MACP and DCRG. He
submits that since he was being deprived of the retiral benefits, he
was forced to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal and
despite the Tribunal having allowed the OA, the respondent did not
release the payments. The petitioner thereafter filed a Contempt
Petition and it is only thereafter that the payments were released. The
petitioner claims interest @ at least 9% p.a. which is the rate of
interest provided by the banks to senior citizens. Counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon a decision rendered by a Division Bench of
this court in the case of V. K. Sareen Vs. Union of India & Ors. : 187
(2012) Delhi Law Times 483.
5. Notice. Counsel for respondent accepts notice.
6. With the consent of the parties, we take this writ petition for final
hearing and disposal since a very short point is involved in this writ
petition with regard to payment of interest on delayed release of
retiral benefits.
7. Counsel for the respondent however submits that there is no
justification for increase of interest.
8. This submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is without
any force.
9. In the case of V. K. Sareen Supra, a Division Bench of this court
while relying on various judgments granted 10% interest while
holding that the petitioner was not responsible for the delay.
10. Apex Court in the case of D. D. Tewari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. : 2014 (9) SCALE 78, in para 4 held that :
"4. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006
and the order of the learned single Judge after adverting to
the relevant facts and the legal position has given a direction
to the employer-respondent to pay the erroneously withheld
pensionary benefits and the gratuity amount to the legal
representatives of the deceased employee without awarding
interest for which the appellant is legally entitled, therefore,
this Court has to exercise its appellate jurisdiction as there is
a miscarriage of justice in denying the interest to be paid or
payable by the employer from the date of the entitlement of
the deceased employee till the date of payment as per the
aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in the
judgment referred to supra. We have to award interest at the
rate of 9% per annum both on the amount of pension due and
the gratuity amount which are to be paid by the respondent."
11. The petitioner in this case retired in October, 2012 and thereafter
since the retiral benefits were not being released, he was forced to
approach the Tribunal. Despite the Tribunal having allowed the OA,
the respondent did not release the payments which led to the filing of
a Contempt Petition and only thereafter the retiral benefits were
released. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court that grant of
pension is not a bounty.
12. We feel that the Tribunal has failed to take note that the petitioner is a
senior citizen and he would be entitled to the interest as provided by
the nationalized banks.
13. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are
directed to pay the interest for delayed of payment of terminal
benefits @ 9% p.a. to the petitioner instead of interest @ 6% p.a.
granted by the Tribunal. No costs.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
DECEMBER 04, 2015/sc
