Telangana High Court

K.Soma Narsaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 5 March, 2024

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                 WRIT PETITION No.10042 of 2021
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the

respondents in not regularizing the period of suspension as on

duty consequent on exonerating the petitioner of all the charges

vide G.O.Rt.No.714, dated 30.10.2019 and not paying full gratuity,

balance of salary after deducting subsistence allowance already

and full salary for three months, balance of provision pension from

the date of retirement and PRC arrears and adding increment from

November 2015 and revising pay and pension accordingly, as

illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to pay the

consequential benefits thereof.

2) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that earlier he worked

as Town Project Officer, Grade-II, and vide order dated 16.01.2015,

the District Collector and Chairman, IKP-Urban (MPEMA),

Nizamabad, has placed him under suspension on the ground of

certain allegations. Questioning the competency of the said

authority in issuing suspension order, dated 16.01.2015, the

petitioner has filed O.A. No.1434 of 2015 before the Andhra

Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Vide order, dated 13.03.2015,

the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. setting aside the suspension

order. Thereafter, respondent No.2, who is the competent

authority, has issued the proceedings dated 04.04.2015 placing

the petitioner under suspension and he was also issued with a

charge memo dated 18.05.2015 by framing 11 charges, to which,

the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 01.06.2015.

During the pendency of the charge memo, his suspension was

revoked and on 09.07.2015 he was given posting orders and

thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Meanwhile, the

petitioner was retired from service on 31.08.2016 on attaining the

age of superannuation. Since the enquiry was kept pending for a

long time, the petitioner has approached this Court for not

granting of the pension and also challenging the action of the

respondents in prolonging the enquiry vide W.P.No.36917 of 2016.

On 13.12.2016, this Court has passed interim orders directing the

respondents to pay provisional pension. In spite of the same, he

was not paid the provisional pension immediately. Thereafter, the

Enquiry Officer has submitted an Enquiry Report on 07.06.2018,

basing on which, the Government has dropped the further action

and exonerated the petitioner from all the charges vide

G.O.Rt.No.714, dated 30.10.2019. It is the grievance of the

petitioner that even though the charges were dropped, his full

pension and gratuity were not paid and suspension period was also

not regularized. Therefore, he made several representations to the

respondents seeking arrears, balance of pension as well as

gratuity, however, no action was taken thereon. Hence, the

petitioner is before this Court.

3) Heard Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner,

and learned Government Pleader for Services-III for the

respondents.

4) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that though the charge memo issued against the

petitioner was dropped by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.714,

dated 30.10.2019, the second respondent has not regularized the

suspension period from 20.01.2015 to 18.07.2015 as 'on duty' and

the petitioner is not being paid his full pension. Further, the

petitioner is entitled for three months salary since no subsistence

allowance was paid for the period from 04.04.2015 to 09.07.2015

and the petitioner is also entitled to the balance of salary for the

suspension period for which he was paid subsistence allowance. It

is further submitted that, in view of the dropping of the charges,

the petitioner is entitled for increment from November, 2015, and

the same was not released on the sole ground that the period of

suspension was not regularized. Since the petitioner was

exonerated from all the charges, the period of suspension has to be

regularized as 'on duty' and the increments have to be released and

pay and pension have to be revised, accordingly. It is further

submitted that, on attaining the age of superannuation on

31.08.2016, the petitioner has retired from service and thereafter

he submitted his pension proposal papers on 23.05.2017 itself to

respondent No.2, who in turn, has forwarded the papers to the

Principal Accountant General on 21.10.2017. Further, after

issuance of G.O.Rt.No.714, dated 30.10.2019, the petitioner has

again made a representation requesting for payment of pension.

Nearly one year thereafter, the petitioner was asked to submit his

pension proposals again as the pension proposal papers earlier

submitted are untraceable. Accordingly, the petitioner has

approached the authorities and again submitted fresh proposals on

19.10.2020. Therefore, the action of the Department in taking its

own time and delaying the proceedings is arbitrary and illegal.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest for the delayed

period. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed

reliance on the following judgments:

       1)     Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1;



1(1999) 3 SCC 438





       2)      State of A.P. v. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameshwari,

               dated 08.02.2021; and

       3)      S.K. Duva v. State of Haryana 2


5)     Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has contended

that on retirement of the petitioner, the second respondent has

forwarded the pension papers for sanction of provisional pension

by duly fixing pay in RPS-2015 to the third respondent in

Roc.No.CMDA-M2/ESST/OTH/130/2017-M2 SEC-CDMA, dated

21.10.2017. Accordingly, the provisional pension was sanctioned

to the petitioner while the enquiry was in progress. Thereafter, the

Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.714, dated 30.10.2019,

exonerating the petitioner from all the charges. Further, on

submission of his representation, dated 18.11.2019, for sanction of

100% pension, the second respondent herein has immediately

forwarded the same to the Principal Accountant General, i.e., the

third respondent herein, vide letter No.6527/2019/M2, dated

03.12.2019, for sanction of 100% pension to the petitioner.

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

processing the pension proposals. It is further contended that the

second respondent vide proceedings Roc.No.1906/917/2015/C4,

2 (2008) 3 SCC 44

dated 05.07.2021, has regularized the suspension period of the

petitioner in two spells i.e. from 20.01.2015 to 29.03.2015 and

08.04.2015 to 22.06.2015. Further, respondent No.2 has issued

order vide Roc.No.294159/2021/M3, dated 24.11.2021, treating

the period from 30.03.2015 to 07.04.2015 for nine days and from

23.06.2015 to 08.07.2015 for sixteen days, as 'on duty', released

the annual grade increment from 01.11.2015 and permitted the

petitioner to surrender 300 days. It is further submitted that as

there were no entries of Group Insurance Scheme (GIS) in the

service register of the petitioner, the second respondent has issued

Memo vide Roc.No.294159/2021/M3-1, dated 25.11.2021, to the

petitioner for submission of revised pension papers. Learned

Standing Counsel has further contended that there is a delay on

the part of the petitioner in submission of documents for release on

full pension, pensionary benefits and increment arrears.

Therefore, he is not entitled to claim any interest. It is further

submitted that the petitioner has made a representation on

03.07.2021 for regularization of his suspension period. Thereafter,

the suspension period was regularized vide proceedings

Roc.No.1906/917/15/C4, dated 05.07.2021. Further, the

petitioner has not submitted the revised pension papers and other

required documents for release of gratuity. Therefore, the second

respondent has issued memo vide Roc.No.294159/2021/M3 dated

25.11.2021 to the petitioner informing him to submit the same. In

response to the above memo, the petitioner has submitted papers

in the office. On verification, it is found that the service record of

the petitioner is not having required entries to sanction Group

Insurance Scheme (GIS) benefits. Therefore, the petitioner is not

entitled for any interest for the delayed period in payment of

pension for the reason that the delay was caused in submission of

documents with insufficient information and shortfalls by the

petitioner himself.

6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the

respective counsel.

7) A perusal of the record discloses that a charge memo dated

18.05.2015 was issued against the petitioner by framing as many

as 11 charges. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended by the

District Collector on 16.01.2015 and the same was set aside by the

Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1434/2015

vide order dated 13.03.2015 on the ground of jurisdiction.

Thereafter, the second respondent, who is the competent authority,

has placed the petitioner under suspension on 04.04.2015 and

issued charge memo on 18.05.2015, for which, the petitioner has

submitted his explanation on 01.06.2015. Thereafter, the

suspension order was revoked on 22.06.2015 and orders were

issued on 09.07.2015 posting the petitioner to Mahabubnagar

Municipality. Thereafter, the petitioner was retired from the

service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2016. The

record further discloses that the enquiry report was submitted by

the Enquiry Officer on 07.06.2018, thereafter, the charges were

dropped by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.714, dated 30.10.2019.

Further, admittedly, during the pendency of the writ petition,

suspension period was regularized under two spells from

20.01.2015 to 29.03.2015 and 08.04.2015 to 22.06.2015 treating

the said period as 'on duty' under F.R.24 (b) (4) vide proceedings in

Roc.No.1906/917/ 2015/C4 dated 05.07.2021. Further, the

waiting period from 30.03.2015 to 07.04.2015 for 9 days and also

from 23.06.2015 to 08.07.2015 for 16 days was also treated as 'on

duty' in terms of FR 9(6) vide proceedings Roc.No.294159/2021/

M3, dated 24.11.2021, and the petitioner was permitted to

surrender 300 days EL available at his leave account at the time of

his retirement as on 31.08.2016. The record further discloses that

in compliance of the interim order dated 13.12.2016 passed by this

Court in W.P.No.36917 of 2016, the provisional pension is being

paid to the petitioner. Further, admittedly, the pension papers

were submitted by the petitioner on 25.05.2017 only and the same

were forwarded by the second respondent herein to the third

respondent on 20.10.2017. Thereafter, the third respondent has

issued provisional pension orders on 26.12.2017. Therefore, there

is no delay, much less inordinate delay, on the part of the

respondents in payment of provisional pay as the papers were

submitted by the petitioner only on 25.05.2017.

8) Further, admittedly, the charges against the petitioner were

dropped by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.714 dated 30.10.2019.

Thereafter, the second respondent has submitted proposals to the

third respondent on 03.12.2019 for releasing 100% pension to the

petitioner. Further, admittedly, the petitioner has made a

representation only on 03.07.2021 for regularization of suspension

period and the same was considered by the second respondent vide

Roc.No.1906/917/2015/C4, dated 05.07.2021. The record further

discloses that after dropping of the charges, the petitioner has not

submitted the revised pension papers and therefore, the second

respondent has issued Memo vide Roc.No.294159/2021/M3, dated

25.11.2021, informing the petitioner to submit the revised pension

papers and other required documents for release of gratuity. In

response to the same, the petitioner has submitted the papers in

the office on 29.11.2021 and on verification, it was found that the

service register of the petitioner was not having required entries to

sanction Group Insurance Scheme benefits and therefore, the

petitioner was instructed to fulfill the shortfalls to process the

pension papers.

9) During the pendency of the Writ Petition itself, the entire

grievance of the petitioner was redressed by the respondents except

the issue of interest on delayed payment of pension and gratuity.

Admittedly, the petitioner was retired from service on 31.08.2016,

he submitted his pension papers on 25.05.2017 and the

provisional pension was sanctioned on 26.12.2017. Further, the

charges against the petitioner were dropped by the Government in

the year 2019 vide G.O.Rt.No.714, dated 30.10.2019. Thereafter,

on representation of the petitioner, dated 18.11.2019, the second

respondent has forwarded the proposals to the third respondent on

03.12.2019 for releasing his balance 25% pension and gratuity.

Further, it is the specific stand of the learned Government Pleader

that the second respondent could not act upon the issue since the

period of suspension was not regularized. Here, it is to be noted

that the provisional pension was paid by the respondents only

pursuant to the interim order dated 13.12.2016 passed by this

Court in W.P. No.36917 of 2016, with a delay of 14 months.

Therefore, it cannot be said that absolutely there is no delay on the

part of the respondents.

10) In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

S.K. Dua's case (referred supra), has held as under:

"13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the appellant retired from service on 30.06.1998. It is also undisputed that at the time of retirement from service, the appellant had completed more than three decades in government service. Obviously, therefore, he was entitled to retrial benefits in accordance with law. True it is that certain charge-sheets/show-cause notices were issued against him and the appellant was called upon to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. It is, however, the case of the appellant that all those actions had been taken at the instance of Mr Quraishi against whom serious allegations of malpractices and misconduct had been leveled by the appellant which resulted in removal of Mr Quraishi from the post of Secretary, Irrigation. The said Mr Quraishi then became Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. Immediately thereafter charge-sheets were issued to the appellant and proceedings were initiated against him. The fact remains that proceedings were finally dropped and all retrial benefits were extended to the appellant. But, it also cannot be denied that those benefits were given to the appellant after four years.

14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retrial benefits are not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents."

11) In Uma Agarwal's case (referred supra), while issuing

dropping proceedings, instructions were also given to pay the

entire amounts, however, in the instant case, no such direction

was given for payment of entire amounts. Hence, the said case is

distinguishable on facts of the present case.

12) In view of the above discussion and considering the totality

of the circumstances, the respondents are directed to pay the

pension, gratuity and other benefits, if not already paid, subject to

the petitioner fulfilling the shortfalls. Further, the petitioner is

entitled for interest from the date of submission of pension papers

i.e. from 29.11.2021 @ 7% on gratuity and 6% on pension, till the

date of realization. The respondents shall pay the entire amounts