S. Harischander, Hyd vs Prl Secy, Revenue Regni Dept, Hyd ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4078 Tel

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                     WRIT PETITION NO.1838 OF 2017

ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed praying to grant the following

relief:

"...to issue appropriate order or direction or more particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in not sanctioning interest on pension on delayed payment of arrears of pension, retirement gratuity, commutation value of pension and the terminal benefit is arbitrary and contrary to law and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and direct the respondents to grant interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment along with exemplary costs and pass... "

2. The brief facts leading to filing the present writ petition are as

under:

2.1. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1969

by DSC, Nizamabad and was promoted as Senior Assistant in the

year 1983. Petitioner was further promoted as Sub-Registrar Grade-II

in the year 1989 and Sub-Registrar Grade-I in the year 2001 and

ultimately, retired on 30.06.2008. The departmental proceedings

were initiated against the petitioner after his retirement from service

vide G.O.Ms.No.167 Revenue (Vig-VI) Department dated 04.02.2009

in gross violation of Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of APRP Rules, 1980 (for short, LNA,J W.P.No.1838 of 2017

Rules, 1980) apart from violation of sub-rules (3) and (4) of rule 20 of

APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 (for short, 'Rules, 1991') for alleged

incident said to have taken place before 16.02.2001.

2.2. Aggrieved by the above proceedings, petitioner filed

O.A.No.2695 of 2012 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal at

Hyderabad (APAT) with a specific contention that order dated

04.02.2009 is in gross violation of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of Rules, 1980, as

per which, departmental proceedings shall not be instituted in

respect of any event which took place more than four years before

such institution. In the instant case, the alleged tampering of record

had taken place prior to 16.07.2001. Therefore, very initiation of

disciplinary proceedings are vitiated and liable to be quashed. The 1st

respondent had imposed 100% cut in pension permanently vide

G.O.Rt.No.138 Revenue (Vig.VI) Department, dated 29.01.2013. The

Hon'ble APAT allowed the said O.A., by order dated 22.11.2013 and

set aside the impugned G.O.Rt.No.138 Revenue (Vig.VI) Department

dated 29.01.2013 with further direction to release full pension and

also pensionary benefits to the petitioner as per the rules.

2.3. The petitioner filed C.A. in O.A.No.2695 of 2012 since the

orders dated 22.11.2013 were not complied with. Subsequently, the

respondents released the pensionary benefits on 24.06.2016.

Petitioner filed Review in M.A.No.565 of 2014 in O.A.No.2695 of 2012

praying for sanction of interest on arrears of pension and other LNA,J W.P.No.1838 of 2017

pensionary benefits from the date of eligibility till the date of

payment. However, Hon'ble APAT vide order dated 24.04.2015

dismissed the review observing that there was no material error

manifest on the face of the order. Petitioner, therefore, filed the

present writ petition for grant of interest @ 18% per annum from the

date of retirement till date of actual payment along with exemplary

costs.

3. Respondent no.3 filed counter and contended that on due

consideration of gravity of issue, Government framed charges against

the petitioner as per Rule 9(2)(b)(1) of the Rules, 1980 and same were

not in violation of Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 20 of the Rules, 1991.

The charges framed against the petitioner were proved in enquiry and

accordingly, punishment of 100% cut in pension permanently was

imposed against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.138, dated 29.01.2013

by the first respondent. In the light of the orders dated 22.11.2013

passed by the APAT in O.A.No.2695 of 2012, the pensionary benefits

of the petitioner were released.

4. The charges framed against the petitioner are grave in nature

and all the steps were taken to conclude the disciplinary proceedings

at the earliest possible and delay if any occurred was not in the

hands of the disciplinary authority or the Government and, therefore,

the petitioner is not eligible for payment of 18% on the pensionary

benefits and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

LNA,J W.P.No.1838 of 2017

5. Petitioner filed additional affidavit and placed on record the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay L.Mehrotra

and State of U.P. and others 1 and also the judgment dated

11.02.2015 rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of composite

High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana

and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.33212 of 2014 in support

of his contention for payment of interest.

6. Heard learned counsel Sri A.Rama Rao for the petitioner,

learned Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Services-II.

7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner

submitted that petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2008 and the

departmental proceedings were initiated on 04.02.2009, which are in

gross violation of Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules, 1980. He further

submitted that as per the above rule, the departmental proceedings

shall not be instituted after expiry of four years from the date of such

incident. In the present case, admittedly, departmental proceedings

were initiated on 04.02.2009 in relation to the alleged tampering of

records, which took place prior to 16.07.2001 and therefore, the

proceedings are much beyond four years as stipulated in Rule

9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules, 1980. The Hon'ble APAT vide order dated

22.11.2013 in O.A.No.2695 of 2012 had set aside the impugned order

(2001) 9 SCC 687 LNA,J W.P.No.1838 of 2017

dated 29.01.2013 and directed the respondents to release full

pension and pensionary benefits and said orders are complied with

and pensionary benefits were released on 24.06.2016 i.e., after 8

years from the date of his retirement, for which petitioner is entitled

to interest.

8. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II

submitted that petitioner had tampered the documents while he was

working as Sub-Registrar of Hayathnagar and did not protect the

important permanent records and therefore, Government framed

charges against the petitioner and in the enquiry conducted, the

charges framed against the petitioner were proved and therefore,

Government had awarded punishment of 100% cut in pension

permanently. He further submitted that Hon'ble APAT while allowing

O.A.No.2695 of 2012 did not award the interest and further, the

review M.A. filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the APAT.

Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for interest and writ petition is

liable to be dismissed.

9. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled

for interest on pension and other pensionary benefits?

Consideration:

10. Perusal of pleadings and material shows that respondent no.1

initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner on LNA,J W.P.No.1838 of 2017

04.02.2009 and petitioner filed O.A.No.2695 of 2012 before the

Hon'ble APAT. Subsequently, the Government i.e., 1st respondent

awarded punishment of 100% cut in pension permanently during the

pendency of O.A. The Hon'ble APAT, on due consideration of material

and Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules 1980 as well as merits of the charges

framed against the petitioner, had set aside the same vide order

dated 22.11.2013. Respondents did not prefer any appeal against

the said order, therefore, the order of Hon'ble APAT setting aside the

G.O.Rt.No.138, dated 29.01.2013 has become final. The respondents

released the pension and other pensionary benefits on 24.06.2016,

pursuant order of Hon'ble APAT, dated 22.11.2013

11. Learned counsel for petitioner strenuously argued that there

was delay of 8 years in release of pension and other terminal benefits

to the petitioner. He further submitted that initiation of departmental

proceedings are contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, 1980 and

therefore, respondents are responsible for delay in payment of

pensionary and other pensionary benefits and therefore, petitioner is

entitled to interest for the delayed period.

12. In Vijay L.Mehrotra (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that

in case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is

expected that all the payment of retiral benefits should be paid on the

date of retirement or soon thereafter, if for some unforeseen

circumstances the payment could not be made on the date of LNA,J W.P.No.1838 of 2017

retirement. In the above case, there was considerable delay in

payment of retirement benefits without any reason or justification for

such delay and therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded simple

interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of

payment.

13. The learned counsel for petitioner also relied upon the decision

of Hon'ble Division Bench of the composite High Court of Judicature

at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra

Pradesh in W.P.No.33212 of 2014, wherein the Hon'ble Division

Bench upheld the order of the Tribunal in awarding interest @ 10%

per annum for the delayed period in payment of pension. In the

above case, employee retired from service in the year 2007 and

charge-memo was issued in the year 2009 and disciplinary

proceedings were initiated. However, Government dropped the

disciplinary proceedings in the year 2013, but, the pensionary

benefits were not released. In the above factual background, the

Tribunal awarded 10% interest per annum for the delayed period and

the same was held by the Hon'ble Division Bench.

14. In the present case, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated

contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, 1980 and the same were set

aside by the Hon'ble APAT, against which no appeal was preferred by

the Government and thus, orders passed by the Hon'ble APAT has

become final. The retirement benefits of the petitioner were released LNA,J W.P.No.1838 of 2017

on 24.06.2016, which is beyond eight years from the date of

retirement of the petitioner i.e., 30.06.2008.

15. In the light of above factual background and the decision of

Hon'ble Division Bench of composite High Court of Judicature for the

State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.33212

of 2014 as well as decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay

L.Mehrotra (supra), this Court is of the considered view that

petitioner is entitled to interest and point is accordingly answered in

favour of the petitioner.

Conclusion:

16. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondents

to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of retirement of

the petitioner i.e., 30.06.2008 till the date of payment of actual

payment i.e., 24.06.2016, within a period of eight weeks from the

date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to

costs.

17. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 17.11.2023 kkm LNA,J W.P.No.1838 of 2017

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

WRIT PETITION NO.1838 OF 2017

Date: 17.11.2023

kkm