Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs V.P Lavania on 15 July, 2015
$~03.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4676/2015
% Judgment dated 15th July, 2015
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Ms.Arti Bansal, Adv.
versus
V.P LAVANIA ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM APPL. 8473/2015.
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4676/2015
3. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a direction to quash the order dated
19.9.2014 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in O.A.No.4264/2012, whereby
the petitioners herein were directed to pay interest on all the retirement
benefits, except gratuity, to the respondent herein for the delayed period
i.e. from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment at GPF
rates, within ninety days.
4. The necessary facts, to be noticed for disposal of the present writ petition,
are that the respondent was working as an Income Tax Officer. He retired
W.P.(C) No. 4676/2015 Page 1 of 5
from the service on 31.8.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation.
However, retirement benefits were not released in favour of the
respondent such as pension, gratuity, commutation of pension, etc. on
account of pendency of three criminal cases, besides other cases, wherein
charges were also framed against the respondent.
5. Aggrieved by the action of the petitioners, the respondent approached the
Tribunal by filing O.A.NO.4264/2012 seeking a direction to the
petitioners to release all his retirement benefits such as pension, gratuity,
commutation or pension with 18% interest from the date of his retirement
i.e. 31.8.2008.
6. While passing the order dated 19.9.2014 in O.A.NO.4264/2012 learned
Tribunal observed that during the pendency of the Original Application,
the petitioners herein had paid all the retirement benefits to the respondent
on all dates. Paragraph 2 of the order dated 19.9.2014 has tabulated the
details as under:
Sl. Nature of Amount Due date Date of Period of
No. Payment Payment delay
1 Gratuity Rs.349000/- 01.09.08 13.03.2013 54
Rs.167160/- months
2 Commutation Rs.366345/- 01.09.08 13.03.2013 54
Rs.2253568/- months
3. Leave Rs.297770/- 01.09.08 12.02.2009 5 months
Encashment Rs.15660/- 11.03.2013 54
months
4. Pay arrears Rs.53729/- 01.09.08 12.10.2009 .....
...........
5. Provisional Rs.53052/- ......... ........ ....
Pension Sept.
08 to June 09
1.09.08 to
Feb.2013
7. Accordingly, the respondent only restricted his prayer in
O.A.NO.4264/2012 with regard to his claim of interest on delayed
payments.
8. According to the respondent he was entitled to all his retirement benefits
as on the date of his retirement i.e. 31.8.2008 and on account of delay in
receiving the payments he has claimed interest. The petitioners herein
(respondent before the Tribunal) had taken a stand that since three
criminal cases were pending against the respondent, besides other cases,
wherein charges were also framed, vigilance clearance was not granted.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits before this Court that delay
was not intentional. Counsel further submits that retiral benefits were not
released only on account of the pendency of criminal cases against the
respondent, the retirement benefits of the respondent were paid belatedly
and, thus, the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay interest.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the order
dated 19.9.2014 passed by the learned Tribunal. It may be noticed that
while passing the impugned order the Tribunal has taken note of the fact
that criminal cases were pending against the respondent as on 31.8.2008
i.e. his date of retirement. Those very cases are stated to have been
pending even now (i.e. 19.9.2014) except that the High Court at
Allahabad has stayed the proceedings in the criminal cases on 29.5.2009.
We are in agreement with the reasoning of the Tribunal that criminal
cases were pending against the respondent on the date of his retirement
and they are pending even now when his retirement benefits were
released.
11. Simply to say that no vigilance clearance was granted, would not satisfy a
person, who has retired and is awaiting his retirement benefits. This
reasoning also does not appeal to us as the same Vigilance Committee
could have granted the clearance either in the year 2008 or after criminal
cases were stayed by the Allahabad High Court in the year 2009 but the
Vigilance Committee has sought to grant clearance only in the year 2013,
for which no explanation is forthcoming with regard to change of
circumstances, which prompted the Vigilance Committee to grant the
clearance subsequently.
12. The Tribunal while passing the impugned order 19.9.2014 has taken into
account Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, which deals with the
right of the President to withhold or withdraw pension. The Tribunal has
also taken into note Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, which
provides as under:
"68. Interest on delayed payment of gratuity
(1) If the payment of gratuity has been authorized later than the
date when its payment becomes due, and it is clearly established
that the delay in payment was attributable to administrative lapses,
interest shall be paid at such rate as may be prescribed and in
accordance with the instructions issued from time to time:
Provided that the delay in payment was not caused on
account of failure on the part of the Government servant to comply
with the procedure laid down by the Government for processing his
pension papers."
13. In the case of S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, reported at (2008) 3 SCC 44,
the Apex Court has held that a person would be entitled to interest on
delayed payment even in case when no detailed Rules or Administrative
instructions or guidelines are available and such a person would be
protected under Part III of the Constitution, relying on Articles 14, 19 and
21 of the Constitution. Relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as
under:
"4. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the
grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well-founded that
he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If they are
Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim
payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are
Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the
purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis.
But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or
Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the
Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral
benefits are not in the nature of „bounty‟ is, in our opinion, well-
founded and needs no authority in support thereof."
14. Having carefully examined the order passed by the Tribunal we find no
illegality in the said order, which would require any interference under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, there is no
merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
CM APPL. 8472/2015 (STAY)
15. Application stands dismissed in view of the order passed in the writ
petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 15, 2015
msr
