Delhi High Court
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sh. S. K. Sharma on 15 December, 2017
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11186/2017 & CM Nos.45757/2017 (for exemption),
45756/2017 (for stay)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Saurabh Chadda, Advocate.
versus
SH. S. K. SHARMA ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 15.12.2017
1. The petitioner/Directorate of Education, GNCTD is aggrieved by the
order dated 20.09.2016, passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in an Original Application filed by the
respondent, praying inter alia for release of his regular pension along with
other retiral benefits with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., w.e.f. the date of
his superannuation i.e. 31.12.2011, till the date of actual payment.
2. The impugned order records that counsel for the GNCTD had stated
before the Tribunal that during the pendency of the OA, the retiral benefits
of the respondent had been released to him and his entire period of
suspension had been treated as 'spent on duty', for all purposes and
therefore, no further relief survived for adjudication. Thus, a prayer was
made on behalf of the petitioner/GNCTD for dismissal of the OA, as
infructuous.
3. However, learned counsel for the respondent herein (applicant before
the Tribunal) had stated that his client was entitled to payment of interest on
the retiral benefits for the delayed period. The said submission was made on
the ground that at the time of his superannuation on 31.12.2011, neither any
disciplinary proceedings, nor any criminal proceedings had been initiated by
the Competent Authority or were pending against the respondent and
therefore, he was entitled to his entire retiral benefits on the very date of his
retirement.
4. The submission made by the counsel for the respondent had weighed
with the Tribunal and relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India vs. Jankiraman reported as JT 1991 (3) SCC 527,
the Tribunal held that since it was an admitted position that no charge-sheet
in any criminal case or any disciplinary proceedings had been issued to the
respondent on the date of his retirement, it could not be said that any
criminal case or departmental proceedings were pending against him on the
date of his retirement. As a result, the petitioner was held entitled to receive
his retirement benefits w.e.f. the date of his retirement. In view of the
above, the OA filed by the respondent was allowed and the
petitioner/GNCTD was directed to pay him interest on the retiral benefits for
the delayed period, at GPF rates within a period of 90 days from the date of
passing of the order. Pertinently, the period of 90 days reckoned from
20.09.2016, would have expired on 19.12.2016, but it has taken a whole
year for the petitioner/GNCTD to approach this Court to assail the impugned
order.
5. The only ground taken by Mr.Chadda, learned counsel for the
petitioner to assail the impugned judgment is that the Tribunal has failed to
appreciate that Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules read with the
Government of India's decision dated 10.01.1983 states that interest can be
allowed only on payment of gratuity. He submits that in such
circumstances, the Tribunal could not have directed the petitioner/GNCTD
to pay interest on the entire retiral dues.
6. We do not find any force in the aforesaid submission. It is a well
settled law that whenever an amount is illegally withheld by a party, interest
is payable thereon to the other side on the simple logic that the person
entitled to receive the said amount has been wrongfully deprived thereof, to
his detriment. In such circumstances, the party who wrongly withholds the
money, must restitute the other party by paying interest on the principal sum
due and payable (Refer: Prem Kumar vs. Indian Road Construction
Company Ltd. & Anr. Reported as 2007 (98) DRJ 546 and Roshan Lal &
Ors. vs. D.T.C. reported as 140 (2007) DLT 49).
7. There are several decisions of the Supreme Court on the aspect of
evidence of delay in settlement of retiral benefits and in case of
unreasonable delay, of directions to the employer to pay interest for the
delayed payment. In the case of Dr. Uma Agrawal vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
reported as (1999) 3 SCC 438, the Apex court observed that "grant of
pension is not a bounty but a right of the government servant" and that
"Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at
all costs". The Court stated that "The case before us is a clear example of
department delay which is not excusable. The petitioner retired on
30.04.1993 and it was only after 12.2.1996 when an interim order was
passed in this writ petition that the respondents woke up and started work by
sending a special messenger to various places where the petitioner had
worked. Such an exercise should have started two years before retirement".
The Court went on to quantify and award an interest of Rs. 1 Lakh to the
petitioner. Similarly, in the case of State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M.
Padmanabhan Nair, reported as (1985) 1 SCC 429, the Supreme Court
saddled the Government Of Kerala with the responsibility of paying interest
@ 6% p.a. on the pension and gratuity due to the respondent by observing
that "a duty was cast on the Treasury Officer to grant to every retiring
Government servant the last pay certificate which in this case had been
delayed by the concerned officer for which neither any justification nor
explanation had been given. The claim for interest was, therefore, rightly
decreed in respondent's favor".
8. In any case, merely because the Rules and Government of India's
decision referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner as above, provide
for payment of interest only on the gratuity, cannot be a ground to preclude
the Tribunal or for that matter, this Court, to grant interest wherever an
employee has been deprived of his rightful dues. Further, the existence of a
specific rule providing for payment of interest on delayed payment of
gratuity, cannot be interpreted to mean that no interest will be payable on the
other retiral benefits, if not released on time.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the present petition
which is dismissed in limine along with the pending applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
DECEMBER 15, 2017/gm
