Ashwani Kumar Tandon vs State of H.P. and Another

Kuldip Singh, J.—The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has confined the relief in the petition for a direction to the Respondents to pay the interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the retrial dues of the Petitioner, which were released to the Petitioner very late.

The case of the Petitioner is that he sought voluntary retirement and vide office order dated 20.6.1998, he was voluntarily retired as District Inspector w.e.f. 30.6.1998. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that despite several representations made to the authorities, the retrial dues of the Petitioner were released only after 24.11.1999. It has been submitted that Respondents without any reasons have withheld the retrial benefits of the Petitioner, therefore, as per Rule 68 of CCS Pension Rules and the decision of the government of India under Rule 68, the Petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 24% per annum on his retrial dues.

The Respondents No. 1 and 2 have contested the petition by filing reply and it has been stated that Petitioner himself is responsible for delayed payment of his dues. The Respondent - department is not liable for payment of any interest on the delayed payments. The Petitioner has intentionally withheld the documents and inaction on his part in submission of the pensionary documents in time is the sole cause for delayed payments.

The Petitioner was facing charges for dis-obedience of order of superiors, willful absence from duty and despite numerous communications from the Resident Commissioner, Killer being Controlling Authority of the Petitioner at the relevant time, the Petitioner sought pre-mature retirement. The Petitioner intentionally did not cooperate in finalization of disciplinary proceedings under one pretext or the other and lastly in view of the Petitioner having sought voluntary retirement, the Respondents had to drop the charge-sheet vide letter dated 23.6.1999 to avoid delay in releasing the pensionary benefits on humanitarian grounds.

It has been stated that Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 14.8.2000 had pointed out certain amounts of outstanding recoveries on account of over payment of proficiency step-up to be effected out of the retirement gratuity amount of the Petitioner and in compliance of the observations of Respondent No. 3, due drawn statements in respect of Petitioner from various offices where the Petitioner had served during the period of over-payments were asked. As soon as the same would be received from the field offices, the balance amount of retirement gratuity will be paid to the Petitioner after re-fixing his pay. The Resident Commissioner, Killer was competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings which were dropped by the Respondents taking lenient view by treating the willful absence of the Petitioner as leave of the kind due on account of his willingness to seek pre-mature retirement.

The Petitioner was asked to submit requisite documents for preparation of pensionary papers vide Resident Commissioner, Pangi telegrams dated 19.8.1998, 14.9.1998, 5.10.1998, 11.11.1998, 24.11.1998 and 2.12.1998, but the Petitioner failed to do the needful and delay in completion of pensionary documents is solely attributable to the inaction and the intentional delay on the part of the Petitioner himself.

Sub-rule (1) of Rule 68 of CCS (Pension) Rules provides that if the payment of gratuity has been authorized later than the date when its payment becomes due, and it is clearly established that the delay in payment was attributable to administrative lapses, interest shall be paid at such rate as may be prescribed and in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time. The proviso to Rule 68 provides that delay in payment was not caused on account of failure on the part of the government servant to comply with the procedure laid down by the government for processing his pension papers.

In the present case, the Respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken the stand that Petitioner is to be blamed for finalization of payment of his retrial dues. The Petitioner was repeatedly asked to submit the documents, but he did not submit the documents and, therefore, some delay was caused for making the payment to the petitioner. The department at one point of time intended to proceed departmentally against the petitioner for his willful absence but when petitioner sought voluntary retirement then on account of humanitarian grounds, the intended departmental proceedings was dropped by treating the willful absence of the petitioner as leave of the kind due. The petitioner has failed to make out a case that without any cause the department has not finalized his pension papers and did not release the pensionary dues to the petitioner well in time.

The Petitioner in the facts and circumstances is not entitled to take the benefit of Rule 68 for a direction to the Respondents to pay interest on his pensionary dues. There is no merit in the petition, which is liable to be dismissed.

No other point has been urged.

The result of above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.