Mahendra Pal vs Union Of India & Ors

Om Prakash-VII, Member (J)

The present O.A. has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for quashing the impugned orders dated 28.10.2017/31.10.2018 and 19.12.2018 with direction to the respondents to make arrangement for payment of interest on the delayed payment of DCRG from the date it was due to be paid i.e. 31.8.2015 till its payment on 31.3.2018 with 12% compound interest as per GID No. 1(3) and GID No.2 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and for further direction to pay admissible interest on the interest calculated from 1.9.2015 to 31.3.2018 up till the date of actual payment of such interest.

The brief facts of the case are that applicant was initially engaged as Extra Departmental Agent (EDDA). He appeared in the Postman Examination and had taken charge as Postman on 21.7.1984. Applicant was served with the major penalty charge memo dated 31.8.2015 on the date of retirement. Enquiry was conducted against the applicant. Applicant submitted representation against the inquiry report to Senior Post Master, Saharanpur. No decision had been taken, applicant filed O.A. No. 898/2017 before this Tribunal which was disposed of on 8.8.2017 with direction to communicate the decision of the inquiry report to the applicant. When no decision has been communicated, applicant filed Contempt petition and during the pendency of the same, respondent had communicated that after considering the records of the case, applicant is exonerated and no penalty is called for vide letter dated 9.3.2018. After exoneration from the charges, respondent issued letter dated 31.3.2018 vide which Rs. 4,10,000 against gratuity had been paid without any interest. Applicant represented to the respondents for interest on delayed payment of gratuity.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued that applicant while working as Postman, a charge sheet dated 31.8.2015 has been issued to the applicant alleging for delivery of 40 speed post articles to one Shri Harun while these speed post articles were addressed to different addresses. Enquiry was conducted. Applicant retired from service on 31.8.2015.Vide order dated 9.3.2018, applicant was exonerated and vide letter 28.5.2018, Rs. 4,10,000/- has been paid to the applicant as gratuity but applicant demanded to pay interest on delayed payment of gratuity. According to DAP, Lucknow as intimated by this Office vide letter dated 28.5.2018 that as per rule 14, Charge sheet was pending against the applicant and Directorae vide letter dated 9.3.2018 exonerated the applicant.Hence no case of delayed payment of gratuity arises.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 31.8.2015 in which after enquiry, disciplinary authority has not passed any order on the basis of enquiry report. When applicant approached this Tribunal, only thereafter, respondents vide letter dated 9.3.2018 has communicated that applicant has been exonerated from the charges and sanctioned Rs. 4,10,000/- as gratuity without interest. Hence the delay has been occurred on the part of the respondents, as such applicant is entitled for interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the charge sheet was pending against the applicant in which applicant has been exonerated vide letter dated 9.3.2018, hence he is not entitled for any interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone though the entire record.

It is admitted fact that payment of gratuity has been paid to the applicant with delay on account of pendency of charge sheet. Enquiry officer submitted its report but disciplinary authority has taken a decision on that when applicant had filed O.A. before this Tribunal. Even after direction of this Tribunal, respondents have not communicated the decision to the applicant. When applicant filed contempt, thereafter, respondents vide letter dated 9.3.2018 intimated that applicant has been exonerated from the charges and sanctioned gratuity amount of Rs. 4,10,000/- to the applicant without interest.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of D.D. Tiwari (D) Thr. LRs Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and others reported in 2014 (3) SLJ 118 has held that “interest on delayed payment of pensionary benefits and gratuity amount erroneously withheld by the employee has to be paid and accordingly awarded 9% interest from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhruba Charan Panda Vs. State of Orissa, 1991 (II) OLR 433 has held as under:-

“18. We dispose of this application with a direction to the State Government to administratively instruct all the Heads of Departments and the concerned officials to ensure that different steps prescribed to be taken under the Rules are rigidly followed and any non-observance thereof is to be strictly viewed. If there is any delay in payment of pension the pensioner shall be entitled to 1 8% interest per annum for the period of delay and this interest shall be recovered from the person/persons responsible for the delay. While fixing the rate of interest, we have kept in view the minimum bank rate of interest charged for borrowing from bank. This aspect shall also be notified to all concerned. We are sure, if such stringent steps in addition to those, which the State Government may feel necessary to impose, are taken there shall be strict compliance of the requirement of law and in future the old retired persons shall not be required to move in the corridors of the Courts with tears in their eyes and a faint ray of hope of getting remedy early, and not posthumous. We record our appreciation for the able and fair assistance rendered by all learned counsel who appeared in the case for various parties. No costs.”

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2001)9 SCC 687 , has held as under:-

“3. In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payments of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement.

In this case, there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making the payment for months together. We, therefore, direct the respondents to pay to the appellant within 12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18% with effect from the date of her retirement i.e. 31.8.1997 till the date of payments.”

Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred cases, I am of the considered view that O.A. deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, O.A. is allowed. Impugned orders dated 28.10.2017/31.10.2018 and 19.12.2019 are quashed. Respondents are directed to pay 6% simple interest on the delayed payment of the gratuity to the applicant from the date it becomes due till the date of actual payment.

There shall be no order as to costs.

All the MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.