AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By way of the instant O.A., the applicant is seeking to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 02.11.2021, whereby Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia hospital, i.e. the respondent No.2 herein, has denied interest for the delayed payment of GPF in the light of Rule 34, GID (2) of GPF Rules. He is also seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the interest @ 18% p.a. on the entire GPF amount which was paid to him belatedly, along with costs.
Briefly stated, the applicant was appointed as a Specialist in Central Institute of Orthopaedics, Safdarjung Hospital. He worked diligently to establish Arthroscopy and Sports Injury centre in Safdarjung Hospital and subsequently, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare re-designated the applicant as Senior Orthopedic Surgeon and Director by a specific executive order. On 19.06.2018, all of a sudden, the applicant was transferred to Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital. Feeling aggrieved by the transfer, the applicant submitted a representation on 21.06.2018 with a request to permit him to remain at the Sports Injury Centre. When his representation was not considered, he submitted an application on 03.08.2018 under Rule 48-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, with the request to permit him to take voluntary retirement w.e.f. 20.08.2018. However, getting no response from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the applicant relinquished the charge under the supervision of Medical Superintendent, RML Hospital on completion of the notice period, i.e. on 20.08.2018.
On 02.11.2018, the respondents informed the applicant that his request for voluntary retirement has not been acceded to. Challenging the same, the applicant approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 4455/2018, which was allowed vide Order dated 05.11.2020 by setting aside the impugned order and the applicant was deemed to have retired from service w.e.f. 20.08.2018. The relevant portion of the Order as highlighted, is extracted below:
“16.From a perusal of the above, it is evident that the respondents were otherwise inclined to accept the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement and the only fact that came in their way was that the applicant started working in B.L. Kapoor Hospital. It was not even indicated that such working at B.L. Kapoor Hospital was on any day anterior to 20.08.2018. As observed earlier, the applicant felt free to walk out of the employment after 20.08.2018.It cannot be said that there was any illegality on the part of the applicant. At the most, he can be denied the emoluments for the period subsequent to 20.08.2018 or for that matter, from the date of VRS application itself.
17.Normally the application for VRS is rejected only when an employee is facing departmental or criminal proceedings or when there is acute shortage of the officers in the department and the services of the employee are needed. None of those grounds are cited here. Even if the action of the applicant in treating himself as relieved from service on 20.08.2018 is to be treated as hasty, that should not have resulted in denial of his request for VRS.
18.We, therefore, allow the OA and set aside the impugned order dated 02.11.2018. The applicant shall be deemed to have retired from service w.e.f. 20.08.2018. He shall not be entitled to any wages or other benefits from 03.08.2018 onwards. Other retirement benefits and arrears of pension shall be worked out and released to him within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the amount is paid within that period, it shall not carry any interest. If it is not paid within that time, it shall carry interest as per the provisions of law.”
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in violation of the aforesaid Order of the Tribunal, the respondents only released partial retirement benefits but not paid the due GPF amount, which is an integral part of the retiral benefits, and vide order dated 15.07.2021, the Pay and Accounts Officer, Dr. RML Hospital had sanctioned the amount computing the same only upto 20.08.2018, i.e. the date of his retirement, and not till the date of disbursal in the year 2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that GPF is deducted from the hard-earned salary of the applicant and the respondents had continuously earned the interest on the said amount, till the date of actual disbursement. Therefore, they are liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of GPF amount to the applicant, till the actual date of disbursement.
In support of his contention, the learned counsel has referred to the rule position contained in the DoP&T Office Memorandum No. 3/3/2016-P&PW (F) dated 16.01.2017, which states as under:
“The GPF Rule 11(4) prescribes that in case the GPF balance is not paid on retirement, interest on the GPF balance is required to be paid for the period beyond the date of retirement also. While interest for the first six months beyond retirement can be allowed by the PAO in the normal course, approval of Head of the accounts office is required for payment of interest beyond six months and that of Controller of Account/Financial adviser beyond a period of one year.
Rule 34 of General Provident Fund (central Service) Rules clearly provides that when the amount standing at the credit of a subscriber in the General Provident Fund becomes payable, it shall be the duty of the account officer to make payment. The authority of the amount payable is to be issued at least a month before the date of superannuation, but payable on the date of superannuation. It may be noted that the requirement of submitting a written application by the retiring govt. Servant for GPF final payment has been dispensed with vide this Department's Notification NO. 20(12)/94-P&PW € dated 15.11.1996 and notified under S/O No. 3228 dated 23.11.1996.”
He further argued that the Respondents have rejected the claim of the Applicant citing Rule 34, GID (2) of GPF Rules stating that ‘if subscriber submits application for final payment after retirement, he is not entitled to any interest for the period of delay’. However, the same has been superseded two decades back by Department’s Notification No.20(12)/94-P&PW dated 15.11.1996, and the requirement to write an application for release of GPF has been dispensed with.
To strengthen his arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 24/2010 dated 27.08.2023 titled Chander Prakash Kaushal vs Govt. Of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Per contra, the respondents by placing reliance on the compliance affidavit filed in CP No. 313/2021 in O.A. No.4455/2018 opposed the O.A. The learned counsel for the respondents averred that the Order dated 05.11.2020 passed by the Tribunal was received in the Department in the last week of December, 2020. Thereafter, the matter was deliberated within the Ministry as well as between the Ministry and RML Hospital at various stages. However, due to prevailing Covid-19 pandemic, it was finally decided by the Competent Authority to implement the order on 11.05.2021 and Speaking Order in this regard was passed on 05.06.2021 accepting the VRS of the applicant and also directing to settle the retirement dues, with a further direction to examine the employment undertaken by the applicant in a private hospital as per Rule 10 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. He further averred that the applicant moved his application for release of retirement benefits on 23.06.2021 and the Department released the same within one month, i.e., in July, 2021. As per the provisions of Rule 34, GID (2) of GPF Rules, “if the subscriber submits application for final payment after retirement, he is not entitled to any interest for the period of delay in submission of the applicant and in addition, interest is not payable for one month after submission of the application for final payment”. Hence, there is no delay on the part of the respondents in releasing the retirement benefits and, thus, the applicant is not entitled for any interest, as claimed by him.
Heard Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, perused the pleadings on record and also gone through the written submission/judgments.
The Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2017 issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension circulated under Reference No. 3/3/2016-P&PW (F) on the subject - Clarification regarding timely payment of GPF final payment to the retiring Government Servant - regarding”, reads thus:
“No 3/3/2016-P&PW (F) Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare Desk-F 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110003 Dated 16th January 2017.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Clarification regarding timely payment of GPF final payment to the retiring Government servant - regarding
During review meetings held to evaluate the status of implementation of Bhavishya with Ministries/Departments, it was observed that GPF final payment in many cases is not being paid to the retiring Government servants immediately on retirement from service leading to payment of interest for the delayed period.
2.Rule 34 of General Provident Fund (Central Service) Rules clearly provides that when the amount standing at the credit of a subscriber in the General Provident Fund becomes payable, it shall be the duty of the Accounts Officer to make payment. The authority for the amount payable is to be issued at least a month before the date of superannuation, but payable on the date of superannuation. It may be noted that the requirement of submitting a written application by the retiring Govt. servant for GPF final payment has been dispensed with vide this Department's Notification No. 20(12)/94-P&PW (E) dated 15.11.1996 and notified under S.O NO.3228 dated 23.11.1996.
3.As per Rule 11(4) of GPF Rules, in case the GPF balance is not paid on retirement, . interest on the GPF balance is required to be paid for the period beyond the date of retirement also. While interest for the first six months beyond retirement can be allowed by the PAO in the normal course, approval of Head of the accounts office is required for payment of interest beyond six months and that of Controller of Account/Financial Adviser beyond a period of one year
4.To ensure timely final payment of GPF, and to avoid unnecessary financial burden on account of interest beyond retirement, it has now been decided that every case, in which payment of interest on General Provident Fund becomes necessary in terms of Rules 11(4) of GPF Rules, 1960, shall be put up for consideration to the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry/Department. In all such cases the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry! Department will fix responsibility at all levels to take appropriate action against the Government servant or servants who are found responsible for the delay in the payment of General Provident Fund.
5.This issues with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, vide their 10 NO.187/EV/2016 dated 2th September 2016.
6.Hindi version will follow.
-sd/-
(Seema Gupta)
Director
To,
1.All Ministries/Departments (As per Standard Mailing list)
2.President Secretariat
3.UPSC
4.Office of C&AG, DDU Marg, New Delhi.”
From a perusal of the above, it is clearly evident that Rule 34, GID (2) of GPF Rules, in the light of which the impugned order dated 02.11.2021 has been passed, is outdated and the same has been modified by the aforesaid O.M.
Admittedly, the applicant was retired after the circulation of the aforesaid DoP&T OM dated 16.01.2017, according to which the requirement to write an application for release of GPF as per Rule 34, GID (2) of GPF Rules, has already been dispensed with vide Notification dated 15.11.1996 and notified under SO No.3228 dated 23.11.1996. Therefore, the applicability of said Rule while passing the impugned order dated 02.11.2021 denying interest to the applicant, is not in consonance with the rules and, therefore, is liable to be quashed.
Besides that, in the earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal vide Order dated 05.11.2020 allowed the O.A. No. 4455/2018, with the following directions:
“18.We, therefore, allow the OA and set aside the impugned order dated 02.11.2018. The applicant shall be deemed to have retired from service w.e.f. 20.08.2018. He shall not be entitled to any wages or other benefits from 03.08.2018 onwards. Other retirement benefits and arrears of pension shall be worked out and released to him within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the amount is paid within that period, it shall not carry any interest. If it is not paid within that time, it shall carry interest as per the provisions of law.”
From the aforesaid order, it is expressly emerged that all the retirement benefits and arrears of pension had to be released by the respondents within three months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the same would carry interest as per the provisions of law. Further, the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Chander Prakash Kaushal (supra) further strengthened the claim of the applicant regarding interest on the GPF amount for the delayed period and I find no reason to take any divergent view.
Resultantly, the O.A. is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.11.2021 is quashed and set aside. The applicant is held entitled to interest on the GPF amount for the delayed perod. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay interest to the applicant on the GPF amount, at the applicable GPF rates for the delayed period, i.e. from the date of his retirement till the actual payment made, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.