Ved Pal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi

Permod Kohli, J

This OA has been filed seeking following reliefs:

"a. to set-aside order dated 25/11/2011 passed by Deputy Law Officer (Vig.) whereby a penalty of 20% cut in pension for three years has been imposed against the applicant;

b. to issue direction to the respondent to pay interest upon the amount illegally withheld for the period from date of retirement till the date of payment;

c. to issue direction to the respondent to pay to the applicant for the post for which the applicant worked i.e. the post of Administrative Officer from 31.08.2005;

d. any other further order/direction in favour of the applicant and against the respondent which this Hon'ble tribunal may deem just, fit and proper to meet the ends of justice."

The applicant was serving as LDC, posted at Delhi. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 19.10.2007. An inquiry was held. On completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary authority imposed following penalty vide office order dated 25.11.2011:

"Having considered the position brought out by the Commissioner in his letter No.F.33/Vig./267/C&C dated 25.4.2011 and the recommendations made by the Appointments, Promotions, Disciplinary & Allied Matters Committee vide its Resolution No.18 dated 27.7.2011, resolved that the penalty of 20% cut in pension for three years imposed upon Shri Ved Pal S/o Shri Ram Chander, Supdt., Land & Estate Department, MCD (now retired) in RDA case No.1/139/2007, earlier vide Corporation Resolution No.534 dated 6.9.2010, be confirmed."

The applicant retired from service on 28.02.2009. Since his retiral benefits were not paid, the applicant earlier filed OA No.614/2011. This OA came to be disposed of vide order dated 20.04.2011 with the following directions:

"4. Having considered the averments on both the sides, we dispose of this OA with the following directions:-

(i) The respondents would release the remaining retiral dues, as admissible to the applicant in accordance with law. This would include the balance of the pension except the proposed 20% cut, the gratuity, the leave encashment and the arrears as per the 6th CPC. The release of dues would be made expeditiously and within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) The final decision would be taken in the matter of proposed penalty in accordance with law. In the event of some cut in the retiral dues by way of the penalty being decided to be imposed, the respondents would pass a speaking and reasoned order. Compliance in this regard is to be made within a period of two months on receipt of reply by the applicant to the show cause notice. No order as to costs."

It appears that these directions were not carried out and pensionary benefits were not released to the applicant, whereupon the applicant filed a contempt petition, CP No.869/2011. During pendency of this contempt petition, counsel for the MCD made a statement to comply with the said directions within seven days. The contempt petition was disposed of vide order dated 20.12.2011 in the following manner:

"Mr. Abhishek Sharma, counsel defending the respondents, at the very outset states that the Tribunal's directions contained in order dated 20.04.2011 given in OA No.614/2011 shall be complied with within a period of seven days from today.

In view of the statement made by Mr. Sharma, counsel defending the respondents, which stands recorded, present contempt petition is closed."

This fresh OA has been filed seeking to challenge the penalty order as also claiming interest on the delayed payment of the retiral benefits, and the salary for the post of Administrative Officer where the applicant claims to have worked. Challenge to the penalty order is only on the ground that the same is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional. There is no serious challenge to the disciplinary proceedings and the resultant penalty order.

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the applicant was issued major penalty charge-sheet in the year 2007, and inquiry was held as per the rules. The applicant participated in the inquiry and proper opportunity of being heard was afforded to him, and there is no violation of principles of natural justice.

The applicant chose not to file any rejoinder to rebut the statement made in the counter affidavit. Otherwise also, there is no legal challenge to the disciplinary proceedings. Thus, interference in the impugned penalty order is not warranted.

As regards the second claim of the applicant for payment of interest on the retiral benefits, the applicant had earlier filed OA No.614/2011 wherein directions were issued for payment of the retiral benefits within two months. There was no direction for payment of interest. The retiral benefits were later paid after the contempt petition was filed. Thus, there is definitely delay in payment of the retiral benefits as the applicant had retired on 28.02.2009, and the retiral benefits seem to have been paid in 2011-2012. Though there is no direction for payment of interest on all the retiral benefits, however, the applicant would be entitled to statutory interest payable on GPF and gratuity for the period of delay.

The third claim of the applicant for payment of salary for the period he worked as Administrative Officer is also not sustainable. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that vide order dated 31.08.2007 the applicant was given current duty charge of the post of Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor & Collector inter alia with the following conditions:

"i) The assignment is in their own pay scale and as a stop gap arrangement.

ii) It will not confer any right on them for claiming adhoc or regular appointment to their post or any other service benefits, whatsoever."

"iv) The period of service rendered on Current Duty Charge will not count as officiating in the higher grade or any purpose, whatsoever."

In view of the above clear conditions on which the applicant was given current duty charge, he has no right to claim full salary of the post of Administrative Officer/Asstt. Assessor & Collector for the period he was given current duty charge.

In view of the above circumstances, this OA is disposed of with the following directions:

(1) The penalty order dated 25.11.2011 needs no interference.

(2) The applicant is not entitled to any salary for the post of Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor & Collector for the period he was given the current duty charge.

(3) The applicant is, however, entitled to the statutory interest payable on GPF and gratuity from the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment. Let this interest be calculated and paid to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.