Chiman Lal vs Union Of India & Ors.

Learned counsel for the parties are present and heard.

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following reliefs:–

The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the Original Application, are that the applicant was appointed in the Railway Department and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2015. After his retirement, his pensionary and retiral benefits were sanctioned by the competent authority; however, the same were paid on 12.01.2016, resulting in a delay of about four months from the date of his retirement. The applicant submitted a representation dated 05.04.2016 before the respondents seeking payment of interest on the delayed retiral benefits. He also obtained information under the Right to Information Act, whereby respondent No. 2 informed him that his retiral benefits had been paid on 12.01.2016, but interest thereon had not been paid. Earlier, the applicant had approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 777 of 2016 seeking payment of interest on the delayed retiral benefits. The said Original Application was disposed of vide order dated 03.06.2016, directing the applicant to submit a representation and the respondents to consider and decide the same within one month. In compliance thereof, the applicant submitted a representation dated 29.06.2016 before the competent authority. Thereafter, the applicant filed Civil Contempt Application No. 330/00167/2016 alleging non-compliance with the order dated 03.06.2016. During the contempt proceedings, the respondents produced an order dated 04.10.2016 whereby the applicant's claim for interest was rejected on the ground that there was no provision for payment of interest on delayed retiral benefits. The applicant has also raised a claim regarding salary/service benefits for the period from 29.03.2003 to 28.01.2007, contending that although he was not permitted to sign the attendance register during the said period, he continued to perform duties pursuant to the directions of the respondents. Aggrieved by the denial of the aforesaid claims, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of the present Original Application.

The respondents have filed their counter affidavit, stating that the applicant was initially appointed as a Gangman and, after medical decategorisation, was offered the post of Safaiwala on 07.08.2003. It is stated that the applicant remained absent from 29.03.2003 to 28.01.2007 and was subsequently absorbed as Hospital Attendant, against which post he joined on 29.01.2007 and continued in service until his retirement on 31.08.2015. With regard to the claim for interest on delayed retiral benefits, the respondents have stated that, in compliance with the order dated 03.06.2016 passed in O.A. No. 777 of 2016, a reasoned and speaking order was passed by the competent authority. It is further stated that the period of unauthorised absence from 24.03.2003 to 28.01.2007 was converted into leave without pay on the applicant's representation dated 22.12.2015, and the case was thereafter forwarded to the Accounts Branch on 23.12.2015. According to the respondents, the pensionary and settlement dues were thereafter paid vide CO7 No. 326 dated 12.01.2016, and the intervening period was attributable to procedural processing as well as settlement of the period of absence. The respondents have further stated that the reply to the applicant's representation was sent on 14.03.2017.

The applicant has filed a rejoinder, wherein the averments made in the Original Application have been reiterated. It is stated that the applicant had acted in accordance with the directions of his superior officers and had performed duties during the period in question. Reference has also been made to the earlier proceedings before this Tribunal in O.A. No. 777 of 2016 and the subsequent contempt proceedings. The applicant has contended that his pensionary benefits were not correctly settled and that he had submitted representations and reminders in this regard. It is further contended that the period from 29.03.2003 to 28.01.2007

The applicant, in the supplementary affidavit, has reiterated that he was working as a Gateman under the Northern Railway and was medically decategorised after being found unfit for the requisite medical categories, whereafter he was required to be accommodated against a suitable alternative post in terms of the applicable provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. It is contended that, during the period following his medical decategorisation, the applicant continued to mark his presence and discharge duties pursuant to the directions issued by the respondents, including at the railway gate and thereafter at Dasna Station, and was ultimately absorbed as Safaiwala. The applicant submits that, having regard to the orders passed in the earlier proceedings and the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble High Court permitting him to approach the competent authority for consideration of a better and suitable post, the period from 24.03.2003 to 28.01.2007 ought not to have been treated as absence from duty. It is accordingly contended that the said period should be counted as qualifying service and consequential service benefits be extended to the applicant.

The respondents have also filed a supplementary counter affidavit in reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant. It is stated therein that the applicant’s retiral benefits were duly paid and that there was no undue delay attributable to the respondents. It is further stated that the entries made in the applicant’s service record are not disputed, which, according to the respondents, show that the applicant remained unauthorisedly absent from 29.03.2003 to 28.01.2007 and joined as Hospital Attendant on 29.01.2007. The said period was treated as leave without pay, and it is contended that the applicant cannot challenge the same at such a belated stage. The respondents have further referred to the order dated 06.06.2003, stating that it specifically provided that salary would not be payable unless the applicant’s attendance was duly certified. It is also stated that the documents relied upon by the applicant do not establish that he actually joined the concerned place of duty or discharged duties pursuant thereto, and, therefore, his absence during the relevant period was duly recorded in the service record. The respondents have further stated that the applicant was found suitable for the post of Safaiwala and was offered the said post, but he did not join and instead sought absorption against an equivalent post, which led to the filing of O.A. No. 1421 of 2003, which was subsequently disposed of by this Tribunal.

The respondents have also filed an affidavit through the Divisional Personnel Officer (DPO), Northern Railway, Moradabad, pursuant to the order dated 21.04.2025. It has been stated that the deponent, being the DPO, is competent to act for and on behalf of the Railway Administration in judicial proceedings in terms of the applicable Railway Board instructions. Reliance has also been placed upon Section 195 of the Railways Act, 1989, which empowers the Railway Administration to authorise any railway servant or other person to act for or represent it in proceedings before a court, and Section 23 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits the Government or the Railway Administration to engage and authorise legal practitioners to present its case before the Tribunal. The affidavit accordingly states that the actions taken on behalf of the Railway Administration were within the authority conferred by the applicable statutory provisions and Railway Board instructions.

Another supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been filed on 25.04.2025 wherein facts of the counter and supplementary counter affidavit have been reiterated.

10 Heard the learned counsels of both the parties and have perused the pleadings of both the sides.

The applicant retired as Hospital Attendant on 31.08.2015 and through this OA has asked for setting aside the order dt 04.10.2016, passed by the Respondents and a direction to the Respondents to release his due retirement benefits along with interest.

The Applicant had earlier also filed OA No. 777 of 2016 before this Tribunal seeking the same relief. Vide order dated 04.10.2016, passed in compliance with the direction of the Tribunal vide its order dated 03.06.2016, a reasoned and speaking order was passed by the Competent Authority, giving details of the various retirement benefits granted and dealing with all the points raised in his representation. In the current OA, the Applicant has sought setting aside of this order, which was issued in compliance with the order of the Tribunal, and has sought release of his retiral benefits along with interest.

It is seen from the details given in the order dated 04.10.2016 that all retirement benefits have already been paid to the pensioner. As per the Respondents, the delay in payment occurred as the Applicant was absent from duty from 24.03.2003 to 28.01.2007. The Applicant submitted his representation dated 22.12.2015 after his retirement, seeking conversion of the period of his unauthorised absence into leave without pay. After his representation was decided and leave without pay was granted, his case for payment of retirement dues was processed and the dues were paid to him vide CO7 No. 326 dated 12.01.2016.

It is seen that the PPO was issued on 30.12.2015, i.e., four months after retirement, when the period of unauthorised absence was regularised (Annexure 2 of the OA), and all the retirement dues were also paid only on 12.01.2016.

As per the GOI Rules,

Further, as per the Rules, the orders of the Competent Authority regarding the counting or otherwise of periods of extraordinary leave, or periods preceding breaks in service or qualifying service for pension, should invariably be obtained at the very time the occasion arises and not later. Such orders should be noted in the service book. [Government of India Order No. (5) below SR 199 in Swamy's Compilation of FRs,Part 1 (7th Edition)].

In the present case, it is seen that the case for pension was not processed as the leave period was not regularised, and this was done only after the Applicant asked for the same post retirement. As per the Rules, it was the duty of the Respondents to prepare the pension papers in a timely manner and work out the qualifying service after taking into account the periods of absence and breaks in service, and the Applicant should have been informed of the same. The regularisation which happened later could have been done before retirement, especially at the time of preparation of the pension papers.

The Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala And Ors. Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, 1985 AIR 356, 1985 SCR (2) 476 has held that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but a valuable right and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment.

In A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab (1997) 3 SCC 405 , it was observed that an employee earns these benefits through long years of service and is entitled to receive them immediately upon retirement. Any delay unbacked by valid legal justification makes the employer liable to pay penal or compensatory interest.

In H. Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. (2003) 3 SCC 40, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that payment of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits (specifically gratuity/pension arrears) is mandatory and not discretionary when the delay is not caused by the employee

Keeping the Government Rules in the matter and the judicial discussions as stated above in view, the OA has merit and is allowed. The Respondents are directed to pay all the retiral dues to the Applicant and, if the same have already been paid, interest at the rate of 6% shall be paid on all the retiral dues payable from the next day of the date of superannuation up to the date on which payment was actually made. In case payment of gratuity has also been delayed, penal interest as per the Government Rules on the subject shall be paid.

Accordingly, the Original Application stands disposed of with the above-mentioned directions. No order as to costs.

All pending M.A.s, if any, also stand disposed of.