Telangana High Court

Ch. Esther Madhulatha vs Board Of Governors, Tsswreis, Hyd. And 3 ... on 5 January, 2024

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                 WRIT PETITION NO.32695 OF 2017

ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking

the following relief:

"....to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein in not paying the compensation with interest for the abnormal delay of 2 years period in settlement of retirement benefits i.e., pension, gratuity and pension commutation etc., on total payable amount @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 01.10.2015 to upto the said amounts credited in the petitioner's Andhra Bank Account till

02.08.2017, the intentional abnormal delay caused financial loss, humiliation and other difficulties as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein to pay the compensation with interest for the abnormal delay in settlement of retirement benefits as per Section 7(3)(3a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972".

2. Heard Sri G.Jonathan, learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned Mr. N.Bhoopal Reddy, learned standing counsel for

the respondents.

3. The brief facts leading to filing the present Writ Petition

are that the petitioner was one of the senior most principal

worked in respondents Society for a period of 33 years. While

the petitioner was working as principal of A.P.Social Welfare

LNA, J

Residential School and Jr.College for Girls consisting total of

630 students, at Narsingi, R.R.District, an unsocial bad element

has managed to publish fabricated news item with mala fide

intention against the petitioner in the year 2006 and the

respondents Society placed the petitioner under suspension for

a period of six months vide proceedings No.Prl/Estt./15706/

2006 dated 22.07.2006 and awarded a minor penalty of

stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect vide

Proceedings No.Prl/Estt./2912/2005 dated 19.04.2007.

4. The petitioner filed an appeal on 17.07.2007 to the

respondents Society and the respondents Society vide

proceedings No.PRl/Estt./706/2006, dated 15.07.2008 had

withdrawn the punishment with warning. Thereafter, the

petitioner submitted representation dated 30.10.2008 to

respondent No.4 for release of increment and to treat the

suspension period as on duty, however, respondent No.4

without taking into consideration the said representation,

issued proceedings vide Rc.No.Estt/15706/2006, dated

03.12.2008 justifying suspension. The petitioner had submitted

several representations dated 08.07.2009, 09.12.2013,

12.05.2014 and 18.11.2014 to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, but

there was no response from the respondents.

LNA, J

5. It is contended that basing on the direction of Hon'ble

Chief Minister, dated 27.02.2009, respondent No.2 circulated

the file for consideration of the petitioner's case vide

endorsement No.987/MSW & (R & B)/2013 dated 16.01.2014.

Consequently, respondent No.3 had issued orders to respondent

No.4 for detailed report along with specific remarks of the

petitioner's case to Government, but respondent Nos.3 and 4

have not circulated the file. Respondent No.4 has not properly

dealt with the file and also ordered to 'lodge the file till further

orders'. After five years, respondent No.4 had intimated the

petitioner that his case, was not considered vide proceedings

No.T/Dis/zone-VI/Prl.Estt/15706/2006, dated 08.07.2015.

6. Aggrieved by the proceedings No.T/Dis/zone-VI/Prl.Estt/

15706/2006, dated 08.07.2015, the petitioner filed

W.P.No.32446 of 2015 to set aside and drop charges and period

of suspension to be treated as on duty and also settlement of

retirement benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of vide

order dated 18.04.2016 with a direction to the respondents to

treat the period of suspension of the petitioner i.e., 25.07.2006

to 02.02.2007 as on duty with all the consequential benefits

and also to settle all retirement, terminal benefits of the

petitioner.

LNA, J

7. Pursuant to the above orders, the petitioner made a

representation to the respondents on 25.04.2016 and also met

the respondents personally. Consequently, the respondents

issued proceedings No.T/Dis/Z-VI/1664/2015 dated

03.06.2016 for regularization of the suspension period of the

petitioner as on duty. However, the respondents did not settle

the retirement benefits of the petitioner despite repeated

requests made by the petitioner. The petitioner made another

representation on 09.03.2017 to the respondents to implement

the orders of this Court, dated 18.04.2016 passed in

W.P.No.32446 of 2015. As the respondents failed to implement

the orders of this Court, the petitioner filed C.C.No.900 of 2017

to punish respondent Nos.3 and 4 for willful disobedience of

orders of this Court, dated 18.04.2016. After filing contempt

case, the respondents prepared the pension papers and sent the

same to Accountant General for sanction of pension, gratuity

and pension commutation and this Court closed the contempt

case vide order dated 14.07.2017.

8. It is further contented that the pension amount of

Rs.36,39,925/- was credited to the petitioner's account on

02.08.2017 and earned leave encashment was paid after one

and half years from the date of retirement. It is further

LNA, J

contended that many colleagues of the petitioner and other

employees of the respondents Society were paid retirement

benefits immediately of their superannuation, however, the

petitioner was discriminated and the retirement benefits were

paid after abnormal delay of two years. Therefore, the petitioner

is eligible for compensation along with interest as per Section

7(3)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Hence, the writ

petition.

9. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments:

1) State of UP and Others Vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh 1;

2) State of Kerala Vs. M.Padmanaban 2;

3) V.K.Singh Vs. Punbaj national Bank 3;

4) Ch.Rama Rao Vs. Government of A.P 4;

5) O.P.Gupta vs. Union of India and others 5;

6) G.Venkati Vs. State of Telangana and others 6.

10. Respondent No.4 has filed counter affidavit and

contended that the petitioner, who was working as a Principal at

(2017) 1 SCC 49

(1985) 1 SCC (L and S) 278

(2013) 3 SCC 472

2014 (2) ALD 26 (DB)

(1987) 4 SCC 328

2023 (3)ALD 656 (TS)

LNA, J

A.P.Social Welfare Residential School and Junior College, was

placed under suspension on 22.07.2006 on the ground that she

failed to take immediate measures for maintenance of clean and

hygienic conditions in the school premises, due to which, nearly

50 to 60 students were affected in the school with symptoms of

Chikungunya. Therefore, proceedings were initiated and

finalized against the petitioner basing on the report of

respondent No.4-Society and the petitioner was awarded

punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without

cumulative effect vide Rc.No.Prl.Estt/2912/2005.

11. On appeal by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority set

aside the punishment and issued warning vide Rc.No.

Prl.Estt/15706/2006, dated 15.07.2008. Further, the request of

the petitioner to treat the suspension period as on duty was not

considered by respondent No.4 vide Rc.No.Prl.Estt/15706/

2006, dated 15.07.2008 and respondent No.4 informed the

petitioner to apply for eligible leave for her suspension period

vide Rc.No.T/Dis/Z-VI/Prl.Estt/15706/2006, Dtd.08.07.20015.

However, the petitioner approached this Court vide

W.P.No.32446 of 2015 and this Court vide its order dated

18.04.2016, directed the respondents to treat the suspension

period as on duty. Accordingly, respondent No.4 Society

LNA, J

regularized the suspension period as on duty vide Rc.No.T/Dis/

Z-VI/1664/2015, dated 03.06.2016. Therefore, the contention

of the petitioner that respondent No.4 delayed the

implementation of the order of this Court on suspension period

is factually incorrect.

12. It is further contended that the petitioner submitted

pension papers of part-I(A) for sanction of provisional pension

on 30.01.2016 and upon receipt of the pension papers, the file

was sent to all concerned sections for remarks on 08.02.2016

and after receipt of remarks, proposal for provisional pension

was forwarded to Accountant General on 20.04.2016 and the

same was authorized on 24.05.2016. It is further contended

that the petitioner failed to submit her pension papers in due

time, but submitted the same on 02.01.2017. After due

verification from all concerned sections, petitioner's pension

papers were forwarded to Accountant General with a request to

adjust the provisional pension already sanctioned vide letter

dated 11.04.2017. The Accountant General had authorized the

service pension gratuity and commutation on 24.05.2017.

Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the respondents in

sanction of provisional pension to the petitioner. The delay in

LNA, J

sanction of provisional and final pension is only due to late

submission of pension papers in Part-I by the petitioner.

13. It is also contended that C.C.No.900 of 2017 was closed

as the interim orders of this Court were implemented prior to

filing of contempt case and the provisional pension was granted

on 24.05.2016, which is prior to filing of contempt case.

Subsequently, the petitioner submitted revised pension papers

for sanction of service pension on 02.01.2017 and the same was

sanctioned by Accountant General on 24.05.2017.

14. It is contended that as per service register of the

petitioner, there were certain omissions of entries in service

19.10.1993, which is treated as EOL, but the increments are

not postponed to the extent of above EOL period and further,

increments were sanctioned erroneously on 20.10.1993 and

also additionally, further increment was sanctioned on

01.10.1994. The increments sanctioned on 01.12.1996 and

01.12.1997 were cancelled due to punishment and the

recoveries of the above sanctioned increments were not recorded

in the service register. Therefore, the suspension period of the

petitioner from 24.07.2006 to 05.02.2007 is not settled and

LNA, J

further increments were also sanctioned without regularizing

the suspension period. Moreover, the punishment of stoppage of

one annual grade increment awarded on 19.04.2007 is not

implemented. Beside the entries of RPS (Revised Pay Scale)

2015 w.e.f 01.07.2013 were also not recorded in the service

15. It is further contended that generally, the pension papers

were supposed to be submitted well in advance before the

retirement, whereas, the petitioner failed to submit pension

papers in advance and submitted the pension papers of part-I(A)

for sanction of provisional pension on 30.01.2016. Therefore,

the delay in sanction of final pension as well as retirement

benefits is only due to delay on the part of the petitioner and as

such, the contention of the petitioner for grant of interest is not

justified.

16. The respondents in support of their contention relied

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Tamilnadu in

the case of Dr.Nadanam Vs. The Registrar, Tamilnadu

Agricultural University, wherein, the High Court has

dismissed the writ petition, which was filed to claim interest at

the rate of 12% per annum for delay in sanction of pension

LNA, J

amount observing that for sanction of pension, there was delay

in submissions of pension papers. Therefore, the respondents

have prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

Consideration:

17. Now, the point for consideration is whether the petitioner

is entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum for delayed

period in release of retirement benefits and compensation

claimed under Section 7(3)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act,

1972.

18. There is no dispute with regard to suspension of

petitioner while she was working as principal in respondents'

Society and treating the suspension period from 25.07.2006 to

02.02.2007 as on duty in compliance of the orders of this Court

dated 18.04.2016 passed in W.P.No.32446 of 2015.

19. The grievance of the petitioner is that the retirement

benefits were released two years after his retirement only on

regular persuasions and representations. Further contention of

the petitioner is that the other employees in the respondents'

Society and her colleagues were paid retirement benefits

LNA, J

immediately after their retirement, however, she is

discriminated deliberately by the respondent Society.

20. On the other hand, the respondents contended that there

is a delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting the pension

papers belatedly and that there is no delay or inaction on the

part of the respondents in forwarding the pension papers to the

Accountant General and that the delay cannot be attributable to

the respondents. It is further contended that generally the

pension papers were supposed to file well in advance before the

retirement to enable the respondents to process the same

through various departments and send to Accountant General

in advance for release of pension benefits immediately on

retirement of the employees.

21. On perusal of the records, it shows that the petitioner

retired from service on 01.10.2015 and submitted the pension

papers on 30.01.2016 and the same were referred to general

section, Zone-VI, discipline section and to account-I section on

08.02.2016 and a note was issued to Superintendent of Zone-

VI, with certain omissions on 04.03.2016. Further, a letter was

addressed on 20.04.2016 to Accountant General by respondent

No.4 for verification report and sanction of provisional pension

LNA, J

since the petitioner suspension period was not settled. On

02.06.2016, respondent No.4 received authorization for

provisional pension from Accountant General. On 03.06.2016,

orders dated 18.04.2016 of this Court passed in W.P.No.32446

of 2015, were implemented and the suspension period was

treated as on duty. Thereafter, on 28.06.2016 U.O.Note was

issued for settlement of suspension period. The petitioner had

submitted application for service pension on 30.01.2016 and

the same was processed by respondent No.4 and the file was

sent to Accountant General for sanction of pension benefits. On

24.05.2017, respondent No.4 received authorization for pension

gratuity and commutation from Accountant General. Finally,

the pension with arrears, gratuity and commutation was

credited to the petitioner's account on 02.08.2017.

22. From the above sequence of events, it is clear that the

suspension period of the petitioner was treated as on duty vide

proceedings dated 02.06.2016 in compliance of the orders of

this Court dated 18.04.2016, passed in W.P.No.32446 of 2015,

however, retirement benefits were not paid to the petitioner.

Only after filing Contempt Case, the pension papers were sent

to the Accountant General for approval and thereafter, the

pension benefits and other retirement benefits were credited to

LNA, J

the petitioner's account on 02.08.2017. Thus, there is a delay of

14 months in crediting the pension, retirement benefits of the

petitioner by the respondents. However, the respondents have

tried to justify the delay on the ground of processing of pension

papers and also attributing the delay on the part of the

petitioner in submitting the pension papers belatedly and that

there are no latches and delay on the part of the respondents.

23. In Dr.Uma Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and another 7, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"5. We have referred in sufficient detail to the Rules and instructions which prescribe the time-schedule for the various steps to be taken in regard to the payment of pension and other retiral benefits. This we have done to remind the various governmental departments of their duties in initiating various steps at least two years in advance of the date of retirement. If the Rules/instructions are followed strictly, much of the litigation can be avoided and retired government servants will not feel harassed because after all, grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the government servant. The Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the court can certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the Rules/instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case.

6. The case before us is a clear example of departmental delay which is not excusable. The petitioner retired on 30-4- 1993 and it was only after 12-2-1996 when an interim order was passed in this writ petition that the respondents woke up and started work by sending a special messenger to

(1999) 3 SCC 438

LNA, J

various places where the petitioner had worked. Such an exercise should have started at least in 1991, two years before retirement. The amounts due to the petitioner were computed and the payments were made only during 1997-

98. The petitioner was a cancer patient and was indeed put to great hardship. Even assuming that some letters were sent to the petitioner after her retirement on 30-3-1993 seeking information from her, an allegation which is denied by the petitioner, that cannot be an excuse for the lethargy of the Department inasmuch as the Rules and instructions require these actions to be taken long before retirement. The exercise which was to be completed long before retirement was in fact started long after the petitioner's retirement.

7. Therefore, this is a fit case for awarding interest to the petitioner. We do not think that for the purpose of the computation of interest, the matter should go back. Instead, on the facts of this case, we quantify the interest payable at Rs.1 lakh and direct that the same shall be paid to the petitioner within two months from today."

24. In O.P.Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as

under:

"24. Normally, this Court, as a settled practice, has been making direction for payment of interest at 12 per cent on delayed payment of pension. There is no reason for us to depart from that practice in the facts of the present case."

25. In G.Venkati (supra), the learned single Judge of this

Court held as under:

"12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the interest @ 15% per annum for the period from the date of retirement to till the actual payment is made i.e., the period between 31.10.2016 to 30.04.2020, on the retirement benefits of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ..."

26. The facts in Dr.Nadanam (supra), relied upon by the

learned counsel for respondents, are distinguishable to the facts

LNA, J

in the present case. Therefore, the said decision does not come

to the aid of the respondents.

27. In the light of facts, circumstances and above discussion,

in considered opinion of this Court, petitioner is entitled to

interest on delayed payment of pension from the date of

submission of pension papers i.e., 30.01.2016 till the date of

credit to the petitioner's account i.e., 02.08.2017.

28. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of directing the

respondents to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the delayed