Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors vs Suraj Bhan on 12 January, 2016
$~03
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3776/2015
Date of decision: 12th January, 2016
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate.
versus
SURAJ BHAN ..... Respondent
In person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Union of India impugns order dated 18th February, 2014, passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (Tribunal, for
short) in OA No.1821 of 2013, directing them to pay interest on the
commuted value of pension at the same rate as applicable to the
General Provident Fund. The order also directs payment of interest on
leave encashment. However, counsel for the Union of India submits
that this part of the direction is not under challenge and interest
towards late payment of leave encashment stands paid.
2. Undisputed facts in brief may be noticed. The respondent-Suraj
Bhan superannuated on 31st August, 2009 from the post of Assistant
Post Master (LSG), Delhi Circle. On retirement, the respondent was
paid provisional pension as he was facing disciplinary proceeding for
major penalty, vide memo dated 2nd June, 2008. This had prompted
the respondent to file OA No.539/2011 for there was delay in
concluding the departmental proceedings. By order dated 13th May,
2011, the authorities were directed to consider the Enquiry Officer's
report, and that the competent authority would decide the disciplinary
case within four months from the date of receipt of the order dated 13th
May, 2011.
3. By Presidential Order No.C-14016/74/2010-VP dated 29th
September, 2011, disciplinary proceedings were dropped and
thereafter, commuted value of pension was paid to the respondent on
10th February, 2012. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal
directs that interest should be paid on the computed value of the
pension which would be computed after expiry of three months from
the date the said dues became payable i.e. three months after
superannuation of respondent on 31st August, 2009.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that interest
has to be paid when there is delay in payment of pension dues, but
submits that in the present case, computed pension was calculated
only on 1st February, 2012 and not earlier and, therefore, no interest is
payable.
5. It is difficult to accept the submission made. As far as the
respondent herein is concerned, there has been a delay in receipt of
commuted value of pension. The respondent should be compensated
for the said delay. An identical situation had arisen in the case of
Narender Pal, the senior of the respondent, against whom also
departmental proceedings were initiated. He had filed OA
NO.432/2011, which was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated
30th May, 2011 and it was directed that he should be paid interest on the
commuted value of pension with effect from 1st June, 2006, his date of
retirement being 30th September, 2005. Order of the Tribunal dated 30 th
May, 2011 passed in the case of Narender Pal was made subject matter
of challenge in W.P.(C) 127/2012, titled Union of India & Ors. Vs.
Narender Pal. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 9th
January, 2012, recording that the retiral benefits had not been paid
to the employee in view of the pending disciplinary proceeding, which
were ultimately dropped. In these circumstances, the respondent-
employee was entitled to interest on retiral benefits and there was no
infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in making the said
direction. It is also recorded that due to inflation, the real value of
money had depreciated and payment of interest only ensured that no
loss was caused to the retired employee. We perceive interest in such
matters is not gratis or penal, but paid to recoup the loss incurred and
suffered by the aging retiree, who stands deprived and denied of what
should have been paid earlier.
6. Following the aforesaid reason and in view of the aforesaid
factual background, we do not find any merit in the present writ
petition and the same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
JANUARY 12, 2016
NA/VKR
