Orissa High Court
WP(C)/11960/2019 on 18 January, 2021
W.P.(C) No. 11960 of 2019
05. 18.01.2021 This matter is taken up through video
conferencing.
Heard Mr.S.K.Das, learned Central Government
Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.K.Ojha, learned counsel
appearing for opposite party.
Petitioner in this writ petition assails the order
dated 28.8.2018 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 260/681 of
2016.
Mr.Das, learned Central Government Counsel
submits that the applicant has already received interest on
the gratuity amount as well as interest on G.P.F. As per
O.M.No. 38/64/98/P&PW(F) dated 5.10.1999 of Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of
Pension & Pensioner Welfare. Payment of interest on delayed
payment due to pendency of dispute in Court/Tribunal on
pension/commuted value of pension, encashment of leave or
ks
CGEGIS is illegal and not flow from any provision of law. He
further submitted that taking into consideration Section 34
of the Civil Procedure Code the usual interest should have
been 6% instead of 10% as such the Tribunal committed
serious error in passing the impugned order which need to
be interfered with. In support of his contention he has cited
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ranchhodji
Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer Gujarat
Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and others
reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1802.
Mr.Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the
2
opposite party submitted that since the conviction in the
criminal case was set aside by this Court and subsequently
the applicant was restored in service, the petitioners are
bound to pay interest on the delayed payment once the
conviction is set aside and the period between the date of
dismissal and the normal date of retirement was treated as
duty for all purposes. The Tribunal has rightly passed the
impugned order by directing the petitioners to pay interest
@10% per annum on arrear pay and allowance, arrear
provident fund, revised pension, leave salary, HRA, bonus
and GIS from the date it was due to the date of actual
disbursement hence the same need not be interfered with. In
support of his contention he has cited the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of D.D.Tewari v. Uttar Haryana
Bijli Vitran Nigam reported in A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 2861.
It appears from the impugned order that the
applicant was working as a Senior Accountant in the Office
of the Accountant General(A&E), Orissa Bhubaneswar. While
working as such he was dismissed from service by an order
bearing No. DAG(A).Con.-MN/333 dated 5.4.2004 on the
ground that he was convicted on criminal charges under
Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 by the Special Judge, Bhubaneswar in
TR No. 34 of 1989. Challenging the dismissal order,
applicant has preferred before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 651
of 2004 which was disposed of on 8.12.2005 by remitting the
matter to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal
filed by the applicant. The Appellate Authority remitted the
matter back to the Disciplinary Authority with some
3
observation. On 31.3.2006 the Disciplinary Authority
confirmed the earlier order of dismissal dated 5.4.2004.
Challenging the order dated 31.3.2006 the applicant has
preferred O.A. No. 491 of 2006 before the Tribunal. The
Tribunal by order dated 17.4.2007 quashed the order of
dismissal which was also challenged before this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 9846 of 2007. This Court by order dated
26.3.2010 upheld the order of the Tribunal which was
challenged through an SLP before the Apex Court in March,
2013. In the meanwhile this Court in its judgment dated
2.3.2015 set aside the order of conviction dated 24.11.1995
passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Bhubaneswar. Pursuant
to the acquittal order passed by this Court, the order of
dismissal was recalled vide order dated 29.10.2015. The
applicant was sanctioned the provisional pension by
petitioner No.3-Deputy Accountant General (Admn.), Odisha,
Bhubaneswar on 30.10.2015. On 5.4.2016 the Apex Court
dismissed the SLP No. 2138-2139 of 2013 as the
respondents withdraw the Civil Appeals. The Apex Court
also directed to pay the retirement benefits to the applicant
within six weeks from the date of judgment. The Deputy
Accountant General (Admn.), Odisha, Bhubaneswar wrote to
the applicant informing him that the period between the date
of dismissal and the date of normal retirement i.e. from
5.4.2004 to 31.7.2010 will be treated as duty for all
purposes and he will be paid full pay and allowances for that
period. The applicant submitted a representation to
petitioner No.2 for payment of interest on arrear salary, GPF
and retirement benefits. However interest on GPF was
4
sanctioned to the applicant but interest on arrear pay and
allowances has not been sanctioned as there was no delay
on payment of the same.
The facts narrated above which reveals that the
dispute was pending before the Court regarding the criminal
charges under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(a) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant has approached
the Tribunal for the same. However the Tribunal passed the
impugned order without considering the pendency as well as
the interest already paid in respect of GPF etc.
The decision cited by the learned counsel for the
opposite party in the case of D.D.Tewari(supra) is not
applicable to the present case as the facts are different.
There the applicant was retired from service on attaining the
age of superannuation and no Disciplinary Proceeding
pending against the applicant on the date of his retirement.
He has approached the Court for granting retiral benefit and
other relief's.
In the present case the dispute is pending before
the Court/Tribunal as such the direction issued by the
Tribunal for payment of 10% interest is an error apparent on
the face of record. As such we set aside the impugned order
and the same is modified in the spirit of Section 34 of the
Civil Procedure Code to the extent that the applicant is
entitled to 6% interest from the date of order passed by this
Court on 2.3.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 1995.
The writ petition is disposed of.
As the restrictions due to the COVID-19
situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may
5
utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court's
website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the
manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No. 4587, dated 25th
March, 2020.
..................
S.Panda,J.
.......................
S.K.Panigrahi, J
