WPSB/98/2017
2025 Latest Caselaw 133 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPSB/98/2017 on 6 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions               COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               WPSB/98/2017
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J. (Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

1. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. D.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Union of India challenged the judgment dated 15.09.2015 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Circuit Bench Nainital in Original Application No. 331/00055/2014. By the said judgment, original application filed by the respondent for interest on delayed payment of retiral dues, was allowed and Postal Department was directed to pay interest @ 9 percent per annum on the delayed payment of retiral benefit.

4. From perusal of the record, it is revealed that respondent was an employee of Postal Department, who would have normally retired upon attaining the age of 60 years. He, however, sought voluntarily retirement; his prayer was accepted and he retired w.e.f. 03.07.2013.

5. According to respondent, the amount of retiral dues was paid to him in the following manner:-

                                         Particulars              Date
                               Pension for seven months       31.01.2014
                               Leave Encashment               08.10.2013
                               Gratuity                       28.01.2014
                               CGEIS                          28.01.2014
                               Commutation of pension         30.04.2014
                               GPF                            19.10.2013

6. Since there was some delay in payment of admissible dues to the respondent, therefore, he approached Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an original application. Relevant extract of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:-

"10. As regards pension of 7 months paid on 31.01.2014 and commuted pension amount, after removal of defect by the appellant, the same period was required to process the papers for the said amounts. We are of the opinion that the respondents should have finalised the said amounts also within 3 months of the retirement of the applicant that is, up to 03.10.2013. The applicant is, therefore, entitled to interest on the said amounts w.e.f. 04.10.2013 till the date of the payment. It may be clarified that pension for the month of October, 2013 to December, 2013 became due thereafter and interest on the pension amount for the said months shall be payable for the respective due dates whereas no interest is payable on pension of January, 2014 which was paid on the due date i.e. 31.01.2024."

7. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that all the retiral dues were paid to the petitioner within eight months of his retirement; therefore, learned Tribunal erred in awarding interest to him on such delayed payment. He further submits that the amount payable as Leave Encashment cannot be treated as retiral dues so as to attract interest on delayed payment. It is further contended that respondent himself was responsible for the delay, as he submitted the necessary documents on 02.07.2013 and on the very next day, he retired upon acceptance of his request of voluntary retirement.

8. Mr. D.K. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra vs State of U.P. & others, reported in 2001 (9) SCC 687. Para 3 & 4 of the said judgment are reproduced below:-

"3. In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement.

4. In this case, there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making the payments for months together. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the appellant within 12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from the date of her retirement, i.e., 31-8-1997 till the date of payments"

9. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment rendered by learned Tribunal. Admittedly, there is some delay on the part of the Postal Authorities in releasing the retiral dues to the respondent. The explanation offered by the petitioner for delayed payment of retiral dues does not appear to be plausible. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal was, therefore, justified in allowing the original application.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 06.05.2025

Aswal

NITI RAJ SINGH Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369

ASWAL 512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1 FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.05.07 18:56:19 -07'00'