Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Ors. vs Jatinder Pal Singh on 16 November, 2015
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10591/2015, CM APPL. No. 26933/2015 (Stay)
Date of Judgment : 16th November, 2015
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate.
versus
JATINDER PAL SINGH ..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. No. 26934/2015 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exception.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W. P. (C) 10591/2015
3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 13.05.2015 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The respondent
retired from service on 23.10.2003 in terms of Rule 56 (j) of
Fundamental Rule (FR) Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. His
pension was neither fixed nor paid which led to the filing of OA on
07.01.2013. After notice was issued to respondent before the
Tribunal, the petitioner herein enclosed a copy of PPO dated
12.05.2015 and made a statement that the respondent herein would be
paid pension regularly. The petitioner before the Tribunal claimed
interest from the year 2003 till the date of pension was released,
which the Tribunal rejected on the ground that he had approached the
Tribunal only on 07.01.2013 and granted interest @ 6% per annum
from 2013 upto the date of payment. The grant of interest by the
Tribunal to the respondent herein has led to the filing of the present
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is not
entitled to interest for the reason that the respondent was involved in
large number of litigations and thus he kept shifting his address and
since his whereabouts were not known, the petitioner could not
release the pension to the respondent and thus the petitioner could not
be fastened with the liability of interest.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are unable to
appreciate the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner
for the reason that once the respondent herein had filed the OA before
the Tribunal on 07.01.2013, his address if not available was made
available to the petitioner, moreover, even from the date of filing of
OA considerable time was taken by the petitioner herein to prepare
the PPO which was prepared only on 12.05.2015 and delay in
preparing this PPO has not been explained. We may notice that the
Tribunal in its order dated 03.02.2015 had issued a direction to
finalize the pension papers within one month, which was also not
complied with. It has been repeatedly held that pension and other
retiral dues are a legal right of an employee to be received as per rules
admissible to him after rendering long service and the same is not a
charity or bounty. Reference may be made to the judgment of the
Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in Deokinandan Prasad Vs. The
State of Bihar and Others (1971) 2 SCC 330. No explanation has
been rendered for the delay in releasing the pension to the petitioner.
6. In our view, the Tribunal has rightly awarded interest to the
respondent from the date of filing of OA i.e. from 07.01.2013 and not
from his date of retirement i.e. 22.10.2003. Resultantly, we find no
infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The present writ
petition and all pending applications are dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
NOVEMBER 16, 2015
gr
