Delhi High Court
Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr. on 6 February, 2019
$~1.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 06.02.2019
% W.P.(C) 3811/2017 and C.M. No. 16748/2017
MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha & Mr. A.S. Singh,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition being aggrieved
by the order dated 06.03.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal
(CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No.914/2015. The Tribunal has rejected the said
Original Application of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner had sought
interest on delayed release of retiral dues of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was serving as Chief Engineer (Construction-II) in the
East Central Railway (ECR), Hazipur, Patna. He applied for voluntary
retirement under Rule 67 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993,
having completed over 20 years of qualifying service. The said application
was made on 14.06.2010.
3. Rule 67, insofar as it is relevant, reads as follows:
"67. Retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service -
(1) At any time after a railway servant has completed twenty
years' qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less
than three months in writing to appointing authority retire from
service:
Provided that this sub-rule shall not apply to a railway servant
including Scientists or technical expert who is -
(i) on assignment under the Indian Technical and Economic
Cooperation (ITEC) Programme of the Ministry of External
Affairs and other aid programmes;
(ii) posted abroad in foreign based offices of the Ministries or
Departments; (iii) on a specific contract assignment to a
foreign Government unless, after having been transferred to
India, he has resumed the charge of a post in India and served
for a period of not less than one year.
(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1)
shall require acceptance by the appointing authority:
Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to
grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the said
period."
4. The petitioner gave 3 months notice as required under the Rules.
However, since the petitioner did not receive any express acceptance/
rejection of his application to seek voluntary retirement, by force of proviso
to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 67, he stood retired on the expiry of the 3 months
notice period. Consequently, on 14.09.2010, he relinquished the charge. It is
not in dispute that after 14.09.2010, the petitioner has not reported for duty,
and the respondents have not treated his absence, thereafter, as unauthorized.
5. The petitioner was not released the retiral dues within the period when
the same should have been released under the Rules. He, therefore, kept
representing to the respondents to release his retiral dues. Belatedly on
18.07.2011, the respondents sought to issue a communication deeming the
petitioner to have retired from service on 13.09.2010.
6. The petitioner has set out in the petition the delay in release of the
retiral dues, and the said tabulation reads as follows:
S. Item of Payment Amount Due date Date of Delay
No. (Rs.) of Credit in in
Payment account months
1. Provident Fund 1544293 13.10.2010 21.11.2011 13
2. Leave encashment 942645 13.10.2010 17.12.2011 14
3. Group Insurance 95016 13.10.2010 17.12.2011 14
4. Composite Transfer 65010 13.10.2010 04.01.2012 15
Grant
5. Gratuity & 2309250 13.10.2010 23.02.2012 16
commutation
6. Pension upto July, 852780 Sept. 2010 21.08.2012 12
2012 to July,
7. With the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner preferred the Original
Application.
8. The submission of Ms. Chopra is that the Tribunal has rejected the
Original Application on a specious ground that the petitioner was a senior
officer, and his application for voluntary retirement required approval at a
very high level in the Railway Board. On this ground, the delay in release of
the retiral dues has been condoned by the Tribunal. Ms. Chopra submits that
under proviso to Rule 67(2) the voluntary retirement took effect on the
expiry of the notice period and consequently, the petitioner stopped serving
after 14.09.2010.
9. On the other hand, the submission of Mr. Sinha is that the petitioner
did not assail the communication dated 18.07.2011 by which the acceptance
of voluntary retirement application made by the petitioner was
communicated. He submits that after 18.07.2011, the retiral dues of the
petitioner were released in a reasonable time. He further submits that there
is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
10. Having heard learned counsels and perused the impugned order, as
well as the documents placed on record, we are of the view that the
impugned order cannot be sustained. By force of proviso to Rule 67(2), the
voluntary retirement of the petitioner took effect on the expiry of the notice
period since no communication of either acceptance, or rejection was made
by the Appointing Authority to the petitioner prior to the expiry of the notice
period. The petitioner also did not serve the respondents, and relinquished
his charge on the expiry of the said notice period on 14.09.2010. The
respondents also does not dispute that the petitioner stood voluntarily retired
on 13/ 14.09.2010. Merely because the respondents chose to issue the
communication dated 18.07.2011 belatedly, would not change the date of
voluntary retirement of the petitioner, or his entitlement to receive his retiral
dues within the prescribed period - which was admittedly not done.
11. Once a Government servant retires, he looks forward to receiving his
retiral dues within the prescribed period, which represent his hard-earned
savings and reward for his service. That is also the time when the need of
the retiral dues is more, so that he is able to implement his future plans. He
stops receiving his salary and perks from the date of his retirement. Upon
retirement, the Government servant would also have to relinquish the
accommodation and other perks that he may have been enjoying while in
service. He may need to relocate from one place to another. If he were to be
denied his retiral dues at such a juncture - which he would have factored
into in his plans, the Government servant would be put to great
inconvenience and harassment. Merely because the petitioner was a senior
officer is no ground to treat him indifferently, or to trivialize his need, or
ignore his predicament. Interest is awarded to compensate the person denied
his dues for the falling value of money.
12. We, therefore, allow this petition and quash the impugned order. We
direct the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner on the delayed
payment of retiral dues at the rate applicable to GPF.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 06, 2019
B.S. Rohella
