Raj Kumari vs Union Of India And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

"(a) Direct the Respondents to expeditiously release the "Service Gratuity" relating to the applicants husband period of employment as per entitlement under Law without any further delay alongwith 9% p.a. interest accruing thereon from the day it fell due till it is paid to the applicant being the widowed wife of the deceased worker Ex-CLTS Late Shri Kailash who dies on 09.01.2014.

(b) Hold and direct the Respondents that denial of payment of Leave encashment as per the entitlement to a CLTS who acquired such status by operation of Law under OM dt. 10.9.93 pm having died during employment while being a left over CLTS was in the process of „Substantive" absorption against a regular post by regularization in terms of provision of Law, is untenable in the eye of Law, hence payment need be released forthwith by way of entitled Leave encashment with 9% interest when became due till paid on the analogy of the Judicial Pronouncement in the matter of Shri Jaipal Singh vide order dated 13.3.2015 passed in OA No. 1255/2013 which has attained finality.

(c) Pass any order or direction as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of case with award of the cost of this OA in favour of the Applicant against the respondents. "

On 28.9.2018, this Tribunal directed the applicant and the respondents to submit the following details:-

"(i) The date of release of gratuity after the death of the employee. They must show the date on which the duly completed formal application for release of gratuity was made to the respondents and the specific date on which it was sanctioned.

(ii) Similar exercise is to be carried out to show the date on which application was submitted for sanction of leave encashment and the date on which the same was sanctioned.

The above information is relevant as delay has been alleged to have been caused by the respondents in payment of these amounts."

In pursuance of the aforesaid Order, the applicant has filed additional details on 26.10.2018 in which it is stated by the applicant that applicant"s husband died on 9.1.2014 and the application for release of service Gratuity was submitted on 31.12.2015, which was responded to by the respondents on 3.2.2016 and ultimately a sum of Rs.1,15,368/- was paid to the applicant on 11.6.2016. The applicant"s objection was only about the delay in making the said payment as the said payment was released only after about 2 years of the death of applicant"s husband and therefore, claimed interest on the delayed payment thereof at the rate of 9% p.a. on the sum paid.

In response to the aforesaid, the respondents counsel informed that in response to the application submitted by the applicant on 31.12.2015, the claim of the applicant was under examination and subsequently a sum of Rs.1,15,368/-was paid to her on 11.6.2016. Hence, there is no cause to grant any interest on the same.

As regard the issue of grant of leave encashment is concerned, the respondents have reply that since the applicant was not regularised in service so the applicant"s husband was not entitled to the benefits of leave encashment on termination of service for any reason. It is admitted fact that applicant was not regularised and was working only as a temporary status employee.

Counsel for the applicant has not brought on record any rules, which provides that even temporary status employee is also entitled to leave encashment.

Further as is evident that application was submitted by the applicant only on 31.12.2015 for release of service benefits and the same was responded to by the respondents on 3.2.2016 and a sum of Rs.1,15,368/- was paid to the applicant on 11.6.2016 ultimately. As is evident, it was only after the receipt of application of service benefits, the respondents after examining the case, as the applicant was working as temporary status employee, released the admissible amount of gratuity to the applicant on 11.6.2016 and the time taken by the respondents in releasing the same cannot be said to be undue delay, as per the Pension Rules.

In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the instant OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.