AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for applicant and the learned counsel for respondents.
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was posted as LDC in the Ministry of Defence and her husband was also posted in the same Ministry. Both of them were charged with the offence of having committed bigamy and both of them were dismissed from service. Both the applicant and her husband approached this Tribunal vide OA No.2309/1998 and OA No.2310/1998 respectively. Through a common order passed on 05.10.2001, this Tribunal quashed the dismissal of the applicant but the dismissal of her husband was upheld. In respect of the applicant the following order was passed by this Tribunal:
"14. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that it is not possible to hold Smt. Kaveri Gaur guilty of violation of any of the Conduct Rules insofar as her marriage to Shri Gaur is concerned. As stated, no other adverse conclusion can be drawn against her either. A perusal of the report/finding of the enquiry authority on which reliance has been placed by the disciplinary/appellate authorities, does not bring out anything adverse against Smt. Kaveri Gaur. The enquiry authority has almost through-out the aforesaid report/finding referred to the adverse circumstances found against Shri Ram Niwas Gaur, rather than against Smt. Kaveri Gaur. It is only towards the end of the report/finding that the enquiry authority has made an un-successful attempt to find fault with the condut of Smt. Kaveri Gaur. The sum and substance of what has been held out against her is that she has misled the Department deliberately and with malafide intention. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to believe that she has misled the Department intentionally. The charge levelled against her is that of violation of Conduct Rules relating to bigamy. That charge has in any case not been substantiated, insofar as Rule 21 (1) is concerned, for the simple reason that she had not become a Govt. servant at the time she contracted marriage with Shri Ram Niwas Gaur. In the circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the order dated 7.7.1993 passed by the respondent-authority dismissing her from service stands vitiated and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The respondents shall reinstated the applicant (Smt. Kaveri Gaur) in service within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. She will be entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant law and rules for which the respondents shall pass appropriate orders within two months of her reinstatement. We order accordingly.
The facts and circumstances in relation to the OA filed by Shri Ram Niwas Gaur are materially different. .................
xxx xxx xxx
In the background of the above discussion, we do not consider it necessary to go into the various other issues raised by the learned counsel for the applicants during the course of arguments. The OAs stand decided in terms of what we have held in paragraphs 14 and 15 above. There shall be no order as to costs."
Thereafter the respondents approached Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by filing Writ Petition No.699/2002 where vide the judgment dated 31.01.2002, the Hon'ble High Court had upheld the decision of this Tribunal. Thereafter, the respondents approached Hon'ble Supreme Court through a SLP (Civil) No.CC 8622/2002. This SLP was eventually dismissed on 18.11.2002. Therefore, the Tribunal's order referred in para 2 above became final.
On completion of this litigation the respondents complied with the orders of this Tribunal by passing order dated 28.04.2003 and the applicant was reappointed. The relevant part of the respondent's order is reproduced below:
"WHEREAS as a sequel to the disciplinary proceedings under Rule-14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965, No.1499431 W Smt. Kaveri Gaur, was awarded the penalty of "Dismissal from service which shall be a disqualification for future employment under the Govt." vide Engineer-in-Chiefs Branch Army HQ Order No 79263/ 432/90/E1D, dated 07 Jul 1993.
xxx xxx xxx
NOW THEREFORE, I, Engineer-in-Chief, in compliance of CAT (PB) New Delhi Order dated 05 Oct 2001 hereby, finally reinstate Smt. Kaveri Gaur in service with all consequential benefits as per rules."
The respondents thus complied with the Tribunal's decision with all consequential benefits as per rules. In due course the applicant retired from service in the year 2011.
During this time, she made a representation dated 12.08.2006 to the respondents claiming certain payments and interest thereof. These were rejected. She had also requested for withdrawal of some payments (Rs.2.43 lacs) from her General Provident Fund (GPF). The said amounts were withdrawn also. However, the payment so withdrawn from GPF, was not made to the applicant on the plea that certain other payments of amount (Rs.9,08,863/-), which were made to the applicant as a result of her re-appointment after the dismissal order was quashed, were actually not due to the applicant since during that dismissal period she had actually not performed any duty and on the principle of 'no work no pay', those payments were treated as not due and a case of over payment and as such this needs to be recovered. As such, vide respondents' order dated 08.02.2006, the GPF withdrawals already made, was treated as adjusted against this over payment and was not paid to applicant.
Thus, the relief claimed by the applicant is in respect of the following payments:
"(a) to allow the present OA and to direct the respondent(s) to pay to the applicant interest on delayed payments as under:
Amount
Rate of Interest
Period
Gratuity
Rs.525575.00
12% p.a.
30.11.11 - 17.10.13
P.F.Withdrawal
Rs.243000.00
12% p.a.
19.01.06 - 18.10.0
Consequential Benefits
Rs.908863.00
12% p.a.
Feb.'02 - June '04
(b) to direct the respondents to finalize and fix the monthly pension of the applicant and to release the amount of commutation of pension with interest.
To grant any other or further orders the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case."
The applicant also submitted that grant of interest in similar cases is supported by various judgments of various Courts also as brought out below:
(1) State of Kerala and ors. vs. M.Padmanabhan Nair of Hon'ble Supreme Court, 1985 SCC (1) 429
(2) A.J.Randhawa Supdg. Engineer vs. State of Punjab and ors. of Punjab and Haryana High Court, (1197) 117 PLR 6
(3) Sh. Suraj Bhan vs. Union of India of CAT, Delhi, OA No.1821/2013 decided on 18.02.2014
(4) K.C.Uttreja vs. The State Government of NCT of ..., of CAT, Delhi, decided on 21.02.2008
(5) Dr. S.Loganathan vs. Tamil Nadu Agricultural..., of Hon'ble High Court of Madras, Writ Petition No.39320/2005 decided on 12.05.2011.
The respondents brought out that the applicant had also approached the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital vide Writ Petition Service No.720/2006 for claiming certain benefits wherein vide judgment dated 06.11.2012 following orders were passed:
"Mr. B.D.Pande, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Pande, Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondents.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned has been withdrawn by the respondents and in view of this fact, the writ petition has rendered infructuous.
In view of the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous."
The respondents also brought out that another petition was also filed by the applicant in Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition Service No.1821/2011 wherein vide judgment dated 06.11.2012 following orders were passed:
"Mr. B.D.Pande, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Pande, Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner came up before this Court for direction to the respondents to pay gratuity pension and leave encashment.
Respondents have filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have not said anything about the fact why gratuity is not being paid to the petitioner. In such circumstances, I direct the respondents to make payment of gratuity to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
List this petition in the week commencing 3rd December, 2012 alongwith WPSS No. 175 of 2008.
Interim relief application stands disposed of."
Subsequently, another writ petition no.175/2008 by the applicant in Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.07.2013 on the ground of alternate remedy being available to the petitioner to seek relief before this Tribunal.
In view of the foregoing, the respondents pleaded that the present petition is barred by limitation and that certain payments (Rs.9,08,863/-) were already made in excess for the period when the applicant had actually not worked as she was already dismissed, and as such, the relief requested cannot be granted.
The matter has been heard. It is seen that the basic charge against the applicant was bigamy because of which she was dismissed by the respondents. This basic charge was eventually not upheld and her reinstatement was ordered by this Tribunal. Since at other stages including SLP in Hon'ble Supreme Court, the decision by this Tribunal was upheld, therefore, this order by Tribunal is required to be implemented in its entirety alongwith all consequential benefits. This is what was ordered also by the respondents. (Please refer para 5 above).
The question, regarding excess payment amounting to Rs.908863.00 for the period when applicant had actually not worked as she was already dismissed, was raised before Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand also wherein the factum of withdrawal of this order by the respondents, was the basis for treating the petition as infructuous. Thus, the issue for wages for this dismissal period is already decided and raising the same again at this stage cannot be sustained. These wages for this dismissal period, need to be paid to applicant, if not paid so far.
It follows from above that the withdrawal request amounting to Rs.2.43 lacs from her GPF, once withdrawn, ought to have been paid to the applicant. In the event, since this amount was not paid, the applicant was denied the use of this money for certain period. Hence, it is necessary that she be compensated through the process of interest for this delay period.
Exactly similar situation prevails for Gratuity also and on the same ratio, this is also decided accordingly.
In view of the foregoing, the OA is allowed. Respondents are directed to pay interest at GPF rates on various payments which were delayed.
Respondents are also directed to fix pension as per rules and payment in respect of commutation of pension, to the extent such commutation was requested by applicant, is also allowed and this also be released forthwith alongwith the same GPF rate of interest.
These orders be complied with by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.