AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
“i The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 25.03.2015 (Annexure No.1) and direct the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to pay the interest @ 12 per annum on the whole amount of GPF i.e. Rs.5,29,536/- for the period 01.02.2010 to December 2011 during which the payment has been delayed, within a period as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal.
(ii)Issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii)To award the cost of the application in favour of the applicant”.
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant while posted at Head Office Saharanpur, was falsely implicated in a criminal case by lodging FIR under section 420, 406, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 IPC and a criminal case No.386-B/2006 has been registered with Police Station Sadar Bazar. On the complaint of Smt. Anuradha Sharma, applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 26.02.2006 and he was arrested. The criminal case is still pending. The applicant was released on bail on 18.08.2011, pursuant to the bail order granted by the Hon’ble High Court. After attaining the age of superannuation, the applicant retired from service on 31.01.2010. Applicant made representation dated 14.09.2011 to the respondent No. 4 for release of payment of amount of GPF, Leave encashment and arrears of pay. He submitted another representation dated 15.10.2011 to the respondents pointing out that they cannot withhold the payment of GPF in any circumstance. The respondent No.2 sanctioned the payment of GPF to the tune of Rs.5,29,536/- in the month of December 2011. Applicant again submitted a representation dated 11.02.2015 for grant of the payment of interest on the delayed payment of GPF for the period from 01.02.2010 to 31.12.2011. In pursuance of representation of the applicant dated 11.02.2015, the respondent No. 3 rejected the claim of the applicant vide impugned order dated 25.03.2015. Through this OA, the applicant has challenged the aforesaid impugned order.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondents in the counter affidavit states that after release on bail, the applicant applied for payment of GPF on 14.09.2011 and same was forwarded to the competent authority and after being sanctioned by the competent authority, the same was paid to the applicant on 04.01.2012. Hence the delay in payment of GPF is on the part of applicant. By order dated 25.03.2015, the respondents rightly rejected the claim of the applicant for payment of interest on final payment of GPF.
Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed in which the applicant has reiterated the facts as stated in the OA and denied the contents of the counter affidavit.
Heard Shri S.K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings available on record.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that respondents cannot withhold payment of amount of GPF, leave encashment and arrears of pay pursuant to recommendation of 6th Pay Commission on account of pendency of criminal case pending against the applicant and there is no rule which empowers the respondents to withhold the aforesaid retiral benefits. He further argues that respondent No.2 sanctioned the payment of GPF in the month of December 2011, but no interest was paid for that period. It is also argued that applicant is entitled for interest accrued from 01.02.2010 to December 2011.
Learned counsel for the respondents argues that after release on bail, applicant applied for payment of GPF, then respondents sanctioned the payment of GPF. Applicant is himself responsible for preferring claim for final payment of GPF with considerable delay on 14.09.2011 whereas he retired on superannuation on 31.01.2010. Hence, respondents rightly rejected the claim for interest on delayed payment of GPF.
I have heard and considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record.
On the issue of payment of interest, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in D.D. Tiwari (D) Thr. LRs vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7113/2014 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25015/2011] decided on 01.08.2014 that:-
“3..........The High Court has adverted to the judgments of this Court particularly, in the case of State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair[1], wherein this Court reiterated its earlier view holding that the pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement, but, have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be dealt with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment to the employees. The said legal principle laid down by this Court still holds good in so far as awarding the interest on the delayed payments to the appellant is concerned.......” 4 & 5. xxx xxx xxx
6.For the reasons stated above, we award interest at the rate of 9% on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity amount from the date of entitlement till the date of the actual payment. If this amount is not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of amount falls due to the deceased employee. With the above directions, this appeal is allowed.”
Hon’ble High Court has further held in Rajeshwar v/s State of U.P., 2011 (3) ESC 1496 (All) ( DB) and Writ –A No. 21955 of 2014 titled Ashok Kumar v/s State of U.P. decided vide order dated 10.12.2015 by Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad. In both the citation, Hon’ble High Court has held that applicant is entitled to payment of interest on delayed payment of his retiral benefits once it comes out that applicant had not contributed to the delay but that the department contributed to the delay in the disbursement of the post-retirement benefits.
In the case of State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in 2013 (3) UPLBEC, 2369, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that terminal benefits such as pension and gratuity are not bounty and they cannot be taken away as per Article 300-A of the Constitution of India without following the due process of law. The Apex Court has further held that merely because a criminal case or departmental proceedings are pending against employee, his terminal benefits cannot be withheld, unless he is found guilty of the same.
It was argued by learned counsel for respondents that there is no provision in the Rule which provides that interest is to be paid on the payment of GPF. However, this contention of respondents cannot be accepted for the reason that because there are no rules providing for grant of interest, the respondent would not be entitled to the same. There is also no bar to the grant of interest whenever the retiral benefits amount is delayed for no fault on the part of the employee.
Undoubtedly, applicant at the time of his retirement on 31.01.2010 was implicated in a criminal case. It is also not the stand of respondents that the applicant contributed to the delay in the disbursement of GPF and there was no delay on part of applicant in this regard. The delay on the part of the respondents cannot be evidently attributed to the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the respondents cannot deny the interest on delayed payment of GPF to the applicant for a mistake or delay initially committed by them. This being so, there is no reason why the applicant should be put to financial disadvantage if delay in actual payments is caused by a course of events which were not caused by him but were attributable to the respondents. In the present case, there is no reason or ground forthcoming in the pleas of the respondents that the applicant was responsible for the delay in the disbursement of his GPF. Consequently, it is just fair that the respondents should compensate the applicant for this delay through payment of interest for the period of delay.
In view of the settled position of law and facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the OA is allowed with a direction to the respondents to pay interest to the applicant on the GPF from 01.02.2010 to December 2011 @ 8% per annum. No order as to costs.