Jharkhand High Court
Bhola Shankar Pandey vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 29 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1626 of 2015
----
Bhola Shankar Pandey ... Petitioner
-versus-
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
'B' Wing, 4th Floor, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi 110011.
2. Secretary, Boarder Roads Development Board, 'B' Wing, 4th Floor, Sena
Bhawan, New Delhi 110011.
3. Director General Border Roads, Seema Sadak Bhawan, Ring Road, Delhi
Cantt., New Delhi 110010.
4. Sr. Administrative Officer, Dy. Dir (D&V), Office of the Director General
Border Roads, Seema Sadak Bhawan, Ring Road, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi
110010.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate
----
5/ 29.06.2021 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
respondents through Video Conferencing. The lawyers have no objection with
regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing
today at 11.00 a.m. They have no complain in respect to the audio and video
clarity and quality.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to release his
balance post retirement benefit, i.e., leave encashment, gratuity and
commutation of pension, which was withheld by the respondents on the plea of
pendency of departmental proceeding.
3. Petitioner superannuated from the post of Superintending
Engineer on and from 31.07.2014. Prior to his retirement, a departmental
proceeding was initiated against him. After completion of enquiry, a second
show cause notice was served to the petitioner to which he replied on
06.06.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner superannuated on 31.07.2014.
Ultimately, by order dated 16.01.2017, the respondents decided to drop the
proceeding against the petitioner. As leave encashment, gratuity and
computation value of pension was not disbursed to the petitioner, petitioner
had to approach this Court for release of the amount under the said heads
along with interest.
4. When the matter was taken up, counsel for Union of India, Ms.
Bakshi Vibha submitted that she had received a mail and informed this Court
that the entire payment has been made on 04.06.2019 during pendency of this
writ petition, but, after filing of the counter affidavit.
5. From the aforesaid submission, thus, it is evident that the amount,
which the petitioner is entitled to, has been disbursed. Now a question in
respect of payment of interest on delayed payment arises. Petitioner
superannuated on 31.07.2014. The departmental proceeding was dropped
only on 16.01.2017, though the reply to the second show cause was submitted
by the petitioner on 06.06.2014. The respondents sat over the reply submitted
by the petitioner to the second show cause notice nearly for 2 ½ years and
took a final decision only on 16.01.2017 not to proceed against the petitioner
and thereafter closed the departmental proceeding. After closure of the
departmental proceeding, only on 04.06.2019, balance amount was paid.
Petitioner was forced to approach this Court as inspite of closure of
departmental proceeding, balance amount was not paid to the petitioner. It
was paid only after 2 ½ years of closure of the departmental proceeding.
6. Considering the aforesaid fact and in view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra versus State of U.P.
& Others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 687, I direct the respondents to pay
interest on the amount, which has been disbursed to the petitioner on
04.06.2019 at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from 16.01.2017 till
04.06.2019, i.e., from the date when the departmental proceeding was
dropped till the date on which actual payment was made.
7. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed
of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
