AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; State and
the Accountant General.
The petitioner has moved this Court for the
following reliefs:
"i) For the direction to the respondents authorites to pay suitable interest on the post retiral benefits including the provident fund, gratuity and other benefits including leave encashment for the period 2003-04 until 2012-13 during which the petitioner was constrained to litigate owing to erroneous interpretation of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules 1958 by the respondents.
ii) For declaration that the respondents have wrongly withheld the retiral dues of the petitioner from 2003 until 2010 when the pension was finally fixed by the respondents.
iii) For direction upon the respondents that the petitioner be paid suitable statutory interest as he was entitled of timely payment/disbursement of all post retiral benefit and was only paid in the year 2010 onwards much later after the law having being settled in that regard.
iv) The Hon''ble Court may any other order/orders which deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and within the ends of equity, justice and good conscience".
In essence, the prayer is for payment of interest
on the delayed retiral benefits paid to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement from the Indian
Forest Service in the year 2003 but the same was wrongly rejected by
the State Government in January, 2004 against which he moved
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench in O.A. No.
183 of 2007 and the same was dismissed by order dated 06.05.2008.
Being aggrieved, he moved in C.W.J.C. No. 9909 of 2008 and a
Division Bench of this Court by order dated 23.12.2008 has held that
resignation of the petitioner had to be accepted and has further
directed that the retiral benefits to which he was entitled be settled
and paid to him at an early date. Learned counsel submitted that
thereafter by order dated 08.09.2009, the State Government had
accepted the request for voluntary retirement of the petitioner with
effect from 01.06.2003, but the payment having been made in the
year 2009 onwards, he is entitled to delay for the period the amount
remained unpaid. In support of the contention, learned counsel has
relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
D. D. Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd . reported
as (2014) 8 SCC 894 as well as of this Court in the case of Shyam
Sundar Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported as 2017 (1) PLJR 960
and also Chandrabilas Sharma vs. State of Bihar reported as 2017
(2) PLJR 1.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The primary reason
for not doing so is the fact that in the earlier round of litigation before
the Central Administrative Tribunal on the point of rejection of his
request for voluntary retirement, the case was dismissed and a
Division Bench of this Court had reversed the same by order dated
23.12.2008. Thus, the issue of the petitioner being allowed to
voluntary retire was still sub-judice before the Court and has finally
fructified in favour of the petitioner by order dated 23.12.2008. In
fact, in the first round the issue was decided against the petitioner by
the Central Administrative Tribunal. Thus, no fault or laches can be
attributed to the respondents for not having given the post retiral dues of the petitioner, as, at least till 23.12.2008, the issue whether the
petitioner would be considered to have voluntary retired or not was
still unclear. This is one part of the matter. The other equally
important aspect is that in the order of the Division Bench dated
23.12.2008, it has been held that the petitioner is entitled to retiral
benefits in terms of the Rules and that the same be settled and paid to
him at an early date. Thus, when the Division Bench itself has
directed for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner at an early
date, the issue of payment of interest was required to be raised before
that very Bench at the relevant time, and the same not having been
done cannot be considered by this Court, moreso, for the reason that
though the Division Bench had directed for settlement and payment
of retiral benefits of the petitioner, but had only observed that the
same be done at an early date. Pursuant thereto, the resignation of the
petitioner being accepted by a formal order dated 08.09.2009 and
payment of his dues starting thereafter, cannot be said to be of a
nature which would entail payment of interest. As far as the
judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner with
regard to payment of interest on the delay, the Court finds that the
foundational facts in those cases were quite different to that in the
present case. In the said cases, the persons had superannuated and as
a matter of right, without there being any fault or laches of those
petitioners, payment not having been made for a long period, the
Court had directed for payment of interest. In the present case, till
December, 2008 the acceptance of the resignation tendered by the
petitioner voluntary retired was still hanging fire. Thus, there is no
similarity between in the facts of those cases to the facts of the
present case.
In view thereof, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
It goes without saying that the petitioner may file
representation before the authority concerned for consideration, but
the decision on the same shall not be amenable to judicial review in
light of the discussions made in this order, since, at the cost of
repetition, the matter relating to payment of retiral benefits in terms
of the earlier Division Bench order of this Court dated 23.12.2008,
which has not given any directions for payment of interest and has
rather directed that retiral benefits be settled and paid at an early
date, cannot be gone behind, interfered with or modified in any
manner.