Shri Kadu Madhav Shekokar vs Union of India And Ors

This application has been filed on 15.02.2017 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

"8.a) To allow this Original Application.

b) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.11.2016 issued by the Resp. No.3.

c) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to declare that the Applicant is deemed to have been voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 31.07.2016.

d) To direct the Respondents to prepare and process the pension/gratuity papers and the released payment forthwith.

e) To direct the Respondents to pay the interest @ 12% p.a. on the delayed payment of retirement benefits.

f) To pay any other order in the interest of justice.

g) To award cost.

The applicant tendered his request for voluntary retirement on 09.03.2016 seeking retirement from 31.07.2016 after completion of 20 years of service under the VRS Scheme. Despite reminders from the applicant on 26.07.2016 and 16.09.2016, no decision was communicated. Learned counsel for the applicant submits across the bar that the applicant was not engaged in any office work after the said date of retirement on 31.07.2016.

The respondents in the impugned letter No.B/14620/E1B(Cadre) dated 17.11.2016 informed the applicant to supply a copy of his immovable property statement (IPS) and also advised him to give a fresh application to extend his date of voluntary retirement by two months so that they could process his case for VRS. The applicant declined to provide any such letter and prior to this, he received a office order No.157 dated 28.09.2016 (Annexure A-7) directing him to handover charge on 03.10.2016. He also submitted a departure report on 28.09.2016 in which he requests to be relieved w.e.f. 31.07.2016. The applicant's case is that the immovable property statement mentioned by the respondents was already on record and therefore, fresh submission was not required. As a result of the delay in processing his pension papers, payment of pension, Gratuity and leave encashment was delayed. He finally received his Gratuity of Rs.14,47,584/- on 20.06.2018 and leave encashment amount of Rs.5,94,290/- for which orders were communicated to the PCDA for issue of cheque in letter dated 15.09.2018 and was stated to have been received in October, 2018. The pension from August, 2016 upto May, 2018 was paid and credited to the applicant's account on 29.06.2018.

The respondents have confirmed the facts set out by the applicant and have baldly denied the claims for relief.

During the hearing, learned counsel for the applicant and respondents were heard. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted a copy of the bank statement and other relevant documents to show the actual dates of payment of amount kept pending for nearly two years by the respondents. An aspect that was clarified with the learned counsel for the respondents was whether there was any hint of disciplinary action or impropriety committed by the applicant which occasioned this delay but no evidence of this kind has been tendered nor have any averments to that effect been made

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents and carefully considered the facts and circumstances, law points and rival contentions in the case.

It is apparent that the rules were followed strictly by the applicant and he had made a request for retirement more than three months after the date of application and he was entitled to a decision of voluntary retirement on 31.07.2016. His retirement application was kept hanging and it has not been denied that immovable property statement that was stated to be already on record was indeed available with the respondents. They had a responsibility to file this paper appropriately and not assign the blame and responsibility for its non-availability to the applicant. The request to the applicant asking him to defer his retirement date by two months was obviously because they wanted to cover up the delay from 1st August, 2016 to 30th September, 2016 by which time, on the 29th September, they had issued orders directing the applicant to handover charge on 3rd October. On that basis, it would actually appear that the applicant was entitled to full salary for the period of August to September, 2016 but no relief can be granted on this ground because relief has not been claimed for this period nor has the applicant made any claim that he was actually employed during that period. What remains now is the claim for interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits which, in this case, includes Gratuity, leave encashment and pension.

In the ordinary course, leave encashment would not be entitled to any interest and learned counsel for the respondents argued that delayed payment of pension will also not attract interest.

We are of the view that the entire exercise of the respondents has been marred by incompetence and by grave impropriety. Grave impropriety can, under certain circumstances, also be interpreted as mala fides and in such a circumstances, there is a liability for respondents to be called to account for their actions. In the circumstances, it is considered appropriate to direct the respondents to pay interest as per rules of Gratuity at not less than 8% p.a. for the delayed payment of Gratuity and at 9% p.a. on the delayed payment of leave encashment and pension which were paid in October, 2018 for leave encashment and June, 2018 for monthly pension. Further, the respondents shall also pay legal costs of the applicant in this case which has been heard for the first time on 29.03.2017 upto the date of final hearing today which is quantified at Rs.25,000/-. This amount shall be paid to the applicant within a period of four weeks, failing which interest cost of 12% shall apply on this amount from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The office of the respondents are also directed to consider taking appropriate action against the officers responsible for this incompetent handling of the applicant's request for voluntary retirement and to consider recovery of the entire penalty fixed above from the individual persons so held responsible.

In the circumstances, the Original Application is allowed as ordered above.