Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chandigarh Administration And Others vs Central Administrative Tribunal And ... on 18 November, 2024
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Arun Palli
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149305-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.25266 of 2024
Reserved on: 30.09.2024
Pronounced on: 18.11.2024
Chandigarh Administration and others ....Petitioners
V/s
Central Administrative Tribunal and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate with
Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioners.
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated
14.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench, vide which the Original Application (OA) filed by
respondent No.2 was allowed and the petitioners were directed to pay
interest to respondent No.2 @ 6% per annum on the amount accrued to him
on revision of pension with effect from 01.08.2008 till the actual payment
was made, within a period of two months.
2. Respondent No.2 Randhir Singh retired as Lecturer
(Geography) on 31.07.2008 from the Government Model Senior Secondary
School, Sector 21, U.T., Chandigarh. The commutation of pension was
sanctioned on 21.11.2008. The basic pension was fixed at Rs.6166/- per
month. The commuted pension was calculated as Rs.2466/- per month and,
therefore, the pension payable after commutation was Rs.3700/- per month.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149305-DB
This pension was to be disbursed through respondent No.5 i.e. State Bank of
India, Sector 10, Chandigarh.
3. Respondent No.2 preferred an original application before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, claiming Rs.8,68,893/-
on account of interest @ 24% per annum on delayed payment of
Rs.3,50,608/- in view of revision of pension which was paid after a delay of
10 years, 3 months and 26 days. Since respondent No.2 was not getting full
pension, he submitted communications dated 21.04.2018 (Annexure A-3)
and 02.05.2018 (Annexure A-4) requesting for release of pension as per the
latest circular of Chandigarh Administration. In response, he received a
letter dated 04.05.2018 (Annexure A-5), stating that his pension had already
been revised vide order dated 02.07.2010 in view of revision of 5th Pay
Commission with effect from 01.01.2006.
4. Letters dated 09.07.2018 (Annexures A-6 and A-7) were also
written by respondent No.2 with regard to payment of pension followed by
another letter dated 13.07.2018 (Annexure A-8) in response to which, he
received communication dated 21.08.2018 (Annexure A-8A) revising his
pension from Rs.6166/- per month to Rs.9622/- per month w.e.f. 01.08.2008.
Commuted pension was also revised to Rs.3848/- per month. The commuted
portion of pension @ Rs.1382/- was also restored along with the original
portion of the pension of Rs.2466/-. It was the case of respondent No.2 that
he was getting less pension to the tune of Rs.3456/- per month from
01.08.2008 to 27.11.2018 and his pension was revised w.e.f. 21.08.2018 i.e.
after 10 years, 3 months and 26 days of his retirement.
5. The sum of Rs.3,50,608/- was received without any interest
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149305-DB
leading to the filing of the original application.
6. The OA was opposed. The contesting respondents i.e. the
Chandigarh Administration (respondents No.2 to 5 in the OA and petitioners
herein) submitted a short reply opposing the claim of respondent No.2. It
was averred that the pay-scales of Punjab Government employees were
revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006 vide notification dated 27.05.2009, which was
later on adopted by the Chandigarh Administration. After its adoption, the
pay-scales of respondent No.2 were got revised from the office of the
Accountant General vide sanction dated 02.07.2010 (Annexure R-1). It was
averred that the revised pension case of respondent No.2 had been prepared
and sent on 19.02.2018 and even subsequently after revision on 17.01.2020.
The dismissal of the OA was also prayed for on the ground of limitation.
7. The Central Administrative Tribunal, allowed the OA, as has
been mentioned in the opening part of this judgment, leading to the filing of
the instant writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the
impugned order dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) is not sustainable because
there was no fault at the end of the petitioners and further, interest could
have been granted for a maximum period of three years prior to the filing of
the original application. It was also submitted that revised pension had
already been paid as per letter dated 21.08.2018 and, therefore, the award of
interest by the Tribunal is unjustified. Learned counsel also submitted that
the Tribunal had failed to consider the ground of delay as respondent No.2
had failed to raise his grievance in time.
9. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149305-DB
the petitioners, we find the writ petition to be devoid of merit. Respondent
No.2 retired as Lecturer (Geography) from the Government Model Senior
Secondary School, Sector 21, U.T., Chandigarh (petitioner No.4) on
31.07.2008. He was entitled to revised pay-scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and
revised pension w.e.f. 01.08.2008 as per the recommendations of the 5th Pay
Commission. As against this, the revised pension order was issued on
02.07.2010 mentioning that the pension/family pension would commence
from 01.08.2008. However, despite this, the revised pension was not
released to respondent No.2 and he was continued to be paid unrevised
pension as per old pay-scales. It was only when respondent No.2
approached his school (petitioner No.4) vide communication dated
02.05.2018 that he was being paid pension as per the old pay structure that
the matter was looked into. Respondent No.2 was then informed that his
case for release of revised pension has been held up for want of bank details
which were then supplied by respondent No.2. Accordingly, vide
communication dated 21.08.2018, the pension of respondent No.2 was
revised w.e.f. 01.08.2008. It, therefore, emerges that the pension of
respondent No.2 was revised w.e.f. 01.08.2008 though vide communication
dated 21.08.2018, meaning thereby that he was deprived of the amount that
he was entitled to for a period of more than 10 years. The petitioners and the
bank did not even bother to check up as to what pension was being paid to
the retired employee little realizing that most of the times, employees are not
aware of the intricacies of calculations. Considering the entire facts, the
Central Administrative Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that
respondent No.2 would be entitled to interest on the delayed payment. It,
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149305-DB
therefore, rightly ordered payment of interest @ 6% per annum on the
amount accrued to respondent No.2 on revision of pension w.e.f. 01.08.2008
till the actual payment was made.
10. We do not find any illegality in the aforesaid decision because
there is an admitted delay in revision of the pension and its payment and that
too for no fault of respondent No.2.
11. The issue of limitation would not arise, for the pension was
revised on 21.08.2018 and payment was made without interest leading to the
filing of the original application in 2019. It cannot, therefore, be said that
there was delay in filing the original application.
12. The argument that interest could have been paid for a maximum
period of three years is also devoid of merit. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has not been able to point out any such provision restricting the
period to three years, especially when the fault was at the end of the
petitioners and not at the end of respondent No.2.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find
any merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(ARUN PALLI) (VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Reserved on: 30.09.2024
Pronounced on: 18.11.2024
vcgarg
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
