R.S. Upadhyaya vs Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund and Others

D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.—This petition was filed for payment of arrears of salary, bonus and terminal benefits including pension and gratuity. The petitioner retired from the post of Upper Division Clerk from the service under the Regional Commissioner, Coal mines Provident Fund, Jabalpur respondent No. 2 on 31st of January, 1988 on attaining the age of superannuation. His services are governed by the statutory rules namely Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964.

During the pendency of this petition, on June 16, 1993, the petitioner''s aforesaid claims were paid in the total sum of Rs. 43,334.15 p. The petitioner now only claims the relief of payment of interest on the said sum for the period from the date it was due to the date of its actual payment.

Few necessary facts for considering the claim of interest set up by the petitioner may now be stated. As has been explained by the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Jabalpur respondent No. 2 in his returns the police had registered a case u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code in the year 1984 on a complaint made by certain workers that provident fund cheques were issued from the office and got encashed fraudulently by impersonating the real payees.

Pending investigation of that criminal case, in which the petitioner''s involvement was also doubted, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order issued on July 3, 1984. Suspension order was passed stating that the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against him. No disciplinary proceedings were taken against the petitioner and the investigation of the criminal case had also not been completed. By an order dated December 22, 1986, the order of suspension of the petitioner was revoked and it was stated in that order that the decision as to how the period of suspension would be treated would be taken on completion of the departmental proceedings. It is now admitted that till the retirement of the petitioner with effect from January 31, 1988, neither any disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner, nor any criminal case was instituted against him. The respondents along with the return have filed two letters received from the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, dated December 4, 1992 and February 3, 1993 respectively. In the first letter, the Dy. Inspector General of Police informed the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Jabalpur respondent No. 2 that the petitioner was not named in the challan that was filed on April 5, 1990 in the Court in the above mentioned criminal case. In the second letter, the Dy. Inspector General of Police informed the respondent No. 2 that there was no doubt against the petitioner and no evidence was available against him, hence the challan was not put up against him in the Court.

On the above facts, it has to be presumed that the petitioner was innocent and was not guilty of any offence for which he was suspended and denied his due salary and other monetary benefits.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the petitioner''s prayer for grant of interest for delay in payment of his dues and submits that the delay, if any, for payment of dues to the petitioner was attributable to the sole default or delay on the part of the Police Department of the State in not completing the investigation of the alleged crime in which the petitioner''s involvement was also doubted. It is, therefore, argued that the respondents should not

be made to pay the interest.

Having heard learned counsel for parties and examined the record of the case, we are of the opinion that the respondents cannot shirk the responsibility of undue delay caused in payment of the monetary dues to the petitioner while in service and his terminal benefits after his retirement. As is apparent from the resume of facts mentioned above, the petitioner was suspended on July 3, 1984 on the express ground that the disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner and his suspension was revoked on December 22, 1986. Thereafter within a reasonable time, it was expected of the respondents to have passed a suitable order with regard to regularising the period spent by him under suspension. That decision was not taken by the respondents on the alleged ground of pendency of investigation of a criminal case in which the petitioner was said to have been involved. No provision from the Services Regulations is brought to our notice that the monetary benefits or dues payable to an employee while in service and the terminal benefits can be unduly withheld due to pendency of criminal investigation. The petitioner retired from service on July 31, 1988 and there was no justification, in any case, thereafter to withhold his monetary dues and terminal benefits till the date of its actual payment made on June 16, 1993. The respondents, therefore, have to own responsibility for undue delay caused in payment of dues to the petitioner. It is obvious that, as a pensioner, he has to wait for a long period from 1988 to 1993 for getting his monetary dues and terminal benefits. In our view , this is a fit case in which the respondents should be made to pay interest for the delayed payment. This was a fit case in which even penal interest should have been levied; but taking into consideration the circumstance that the investigation with the police was also a contributory cause for delay, we direct that the petitioner shall be paid by the respondent 6% interest per annum on the amount of Rs. 43,334.15 p atleast from the date of his retirement on July 31, 1988 to June 16, 1993, i.e. the date of actual payment. In making the above directions, we are only granting relief similar to the relief granted by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and Others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair,

It would be open to the respondents to hold an enquiry and fix the responsibility on the officer or member of the staff whose default is found in causing delay in payment to the petitioner and the respondents may recover that amount from such an erring officer.

Consequently, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed to the extent of payment of interest for the period and at the rate mentioned above. The petitioner shall get the costs of the petition. Counsel''s fee Rs. 750/-, if certified.