Delhi High Court
S. S. Chauhan vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 January, 2022
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12533/2021 & CM APPL. 39457/2021
Decision delivered on: 11.01.2022
S. S. CHAUHAN ......Petitioner
Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ......Respondents
Through: Mr D.S. Mahendru, Senior Panel
Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.03.2021,
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"] in
O.A. No. 650/2021.
2. Mr Sanjay Kumar, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that,
the only grievance of the petitioner, which survived in the second round
before the Tribunal, concerned payment of interest delayed release of retiral
benefits.
3. On the last date i.e., 09.11.2021, we had asked Mr Kumar to place on
record a copy of the O.A.No.420/2013, which was filed by the petitioner in
the first round.
3.1. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 09.11.2021, Mr Kumar has
placed a copy of the O.A. No.420/2013 on record. The reliefs sought in the
said O.A. are set forth hereafter:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA
Signing Date:14.01.2022
16:54:47
W.P.(C) 12533/2021 Pg. 1 of 3
"(i) To call for the records of the case;
(ii) To quash and set aside the impugned charge memo
No. C.No.5-vig/Dl-IV/2012/3306 dated 30.07.2012;
(iii) To direct the respondents to confer all the
retirement benefits to the applicant along with
consequential benefits like payment of interest for the
delayed payment etc."
3.2. Admittedly, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the petitioner and quashed
the charge memo dated 30.07.2012. This order was passed by the Tribunal
on 13.03.2014.
3.3. The respondents, being aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2014, had
assailed the matter by way of a writ petition i.e., WP (C) No. 6108/2014,
titled Union of India and Another vs. S.S Chauhan. A Division Bench of
this Court dismissed the respondent's writ petition i.e., WP (C) No.
6108/2014 via order dated 11.12.2019, along with a batch of other
connected writ petitions.
3.4. It is, thereafter, that the petitioner filed a fresh O.A. i.e., O.A
650/2021, in which the impugned order dated 23.03.2021, has been passed.
The Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner's O.A., for reasons given in
paragraph 5 of the said order. For the sake of convenience, the same is
extracted thereafter: -
"5. The only relief claimed in this OA is the one of payment of
interest. It is fairly well settled that any writ petition or OA
cannot be maintained exclusively for the purpose of payment of
interest. It is only when a Court or Tribunal passed an order
directing payment of certain amount, then the directions as to the
interest thereon, are issued. Independently, payment of interest
cannot constitute the subject matter of adjudication. Further, it
is not, as if, the withholding of the pensionary benefits of the
applicant was without any basis. Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules 1972, mandate that wherever an employee is (a) placed
under suspension; (b) faced departmental proceedings or (c)
faced criminal proceedings, as on date of retirement, he shall be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA
Signing Date:14.01.2022
16:54:47
W.P.(C) 12533/2021 Pg. 2 of 3
paid only the provisional pension and other benefits are liable to
be withheld. The immediate preceding Rule, namely, Rule 68 of
Pension Rules provides for payment of interest on delayed
payment of gratuity. Rule 69 is an exception for that. As long as
the disciplinary or criminal proceedings were pending, the
occasion to release the pensionary benefits does not arise.
Further, if there was_ absolute~ no justification for initiation of
disciplinary proceedings at all, it is only for the concerned
Court which dealt with the charge sheet or criminal cases to
pass appropriate orders, as regards payment of interest also.
4. Having examined the record and heard the learned counsel for the
parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
4.1. Apart from anything else, it is quite clear that the petitioner had
sought the relief for the payment of interest on retirement benefits, which
was not granted by the Tribunal while disposing of the earlier O.A i.e., O.A.
No. 420/2013. Therefore, apart from anything else, on the principle
analogous to constructive res judicata, no interference is called for with the
order of the Tribunal, dated 23.03.2021. The Tribunal has, however, as
noticed above, furnished various grounds for declining relief to the
petitioner, including the ground that the respondents were justified in
withholding retirement benefits, till such time the charge memo was alive
and/ or pending.
5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, pending
application shall stand closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER
(JUDGE)
TALWANT SINGH
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 11, 2022/mr
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA
Signing Date:14.01.2022
16:54:47
W.P.(C) 12533/2021 Pg. 3 of 3
