Ved Prakash Gera vs Delhi Library Board and Another

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—Petitioner by means of this writ petition had sought release of his terminal benefits and certain other monetary emoluments which were withheld on account of a criminal case u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which was filed against him by his daughter-in-law. It is not disputed that during the pendency of the petition most of the entitlements claimed by the petitioner, taking the criminal case as not been filed, have been paid and the petitioner has received all the terminal benefits. Only three reliefs now remain and which are (i) the claim of ACP benefits as claimed by the petitioner, (ii) payment of interest for the delayed period of payment of terminal benefits and (iii) increments due during the suspension period.

So far as the first claim of ACP benefits is concerned, the admitted facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Librarian Grade-III on 15.9.1977 as a direct recruit. He was again subsequently recruited as a direct recruit on 5.5.1989 as a Librarian Grade-II. Petitioner states that since both the posts have merged into one post, therefore petitioner''s ACP benefits will be counted from 15.9.1977 and not from 5.5.1989. It may also be noted that petitioner admits that when he was appointed as Librarian Grade-II on 5.5.1989 he got a higher scale of pay than as that payable to a Librarian Grade-III. Petitioner in support of his arguments places reliance upon the clarification which is issued by the respondents dated 10.2.2000 and which is filed alongwith the affidavit of respondents dated 23.11.2011. Reliance is placed upon question No. 5 and its response to contend that benefits of ACP scheme will be granted from the original date of appointment of the petitioner as Librarian Grade-III in the year 1977. The clarifications which are given pertain to queries 4, 5 and 6 and therefore the said queries 4, 5 and 6 and clarifications with respect thereto are reproduced as under:-

(Emphasis is added by me)

In my opinion, the contention of the petitioner is misconceived because the clarification clearly provides that object of an ACP scheme is to prevent stagnation in a particular scale of pay for over 12 years i.e. clarification makes it abundantly clear that if a person gets a higher scale of pay in the period of 12 years, whether on account of promotion or a fresh appointment by direct recruitment, the commencement of the period for ACP benefits will be the date of appointment in the new post at the higher pay scale. Therefore, since in the present case petitioner was appointed as a direct recruit at a higher pay-scale as Librarian-Grade II in the year 1989, the period for grant of ACP benefits will start in the year 1989. Respondent No. 1 has already given ACP benefits to the petitioner taking the date of appointment in the year 1989 when the petitioner was appointed as a Librarian Grade-II. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to ACP benefits on the ground that his appointment should be taken from the year 1977.

So far as the claim for interest is concerned, I agree that petitioner should be compensated for the delayed payment of terminal benefits and other monetary emoluments. As has been held by the Supreme Court in many cases that payment of terminal benefits is not a bounty. Therefore, the petitioner will be paid interest @ 6% per annum simple from the next day of the date of his retirement on 31.7.2004 i.e. w.e.f. 1.8.2004, and which will be paid till the date when the petitioner was paid terminal benefits by the respondent No. 1. It is clarified that by expression ''terminal benefits'' it is meant all amounts which would have become due to the petitioner on his retirement.

Petitioner also rightly contends that on his suspension being revoked, he ought to have been given necessary monetary emoluments including pay increases in the period of suspension which stood revoked, but which were not paid, and were ultimately paid with delay. Therefore, I hold that once the suspension order of the petitioner stood revoked, the petitioner was entitled to higher pay scales or all other monetary benefits payable as if the suspension order was not passed. Accordingly for the period of delay in release of these monetary benefits, petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum simple.

Amounts which are due to the petitioner in terms of this judgment be now paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. If the amounts due to the petitioner are not paid within two months from today, thereafter petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum simple. Writ petition is allowed to the extent of grant of interest for the period of delay of making payments to the petitioner as stated above. Parties are left to bear their own costs.