M.G. Chackochan vs Union Of India & Others

K.V. Eapen, Member A

The applicant is a retired Technical Officer who was serving in the office of the Chief Engineer Jodhpur Zone of the Military Engineer Services (MES). He has filed the O.A aggrieved by the delay on the part of the respondents in sanctioning and disbursing the pension and other retirement benefits due to him. It appears that he had applied for voluntary retirement from service vide a representation dated 16.12.2016 submitted by him (produced at Annexure A-1) asking for the voluntary retirement to be made effective from 31.03.2017. He claims that, therefore, with effect from 01.04.2017 he has become a pensioner. He had also submitted the necessary papers for sanction, drawal and disbursement of monthly pension and other pensionary benefits. However, the respondents had not sanctioned the pension due to him till the filing of the O.A and were keeping the papers unattended, inspite of reminders, sent by him from January 2018 onwards right up to April 2019. He thus claims that he has been denied pension and other retirement benefits for a period of at least two years after his voluntary retirement came into effect from 31.03.2017.

It is also submitted by the applicant that there were no disciplinary proceedings pending or contemplated against him either on 16.12.2016 ie., the date on which he had applied for voluntary retirement from service or on 31.03.2017 ie., the date of his deemed retirement from service. Neither was he on suspension on 16.12.2016 or thereafter. Therefore, since he had completed more than 30 years of qualifying service, he has to be covered under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 governing the conditions for voluntary retirement which he invoked in his application. As per this Rule he submits that there is no requirement of the retirement request to be formally accepted by the appointing authority before he can retire from service. Such requirements are there only for those applying for voluntary retirement under Rule 48-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 ie., for those who have completed 20 years of qualifying service but have not attained 30 years qualifying service. Thus, there is an inexplicable delay on the part of the respondents in sanctioning and disbursing the pension and other retirement benefits that are due to him. He, therefore, seeks the following reliefs :

Declare that the inexplicable delay on the part of the respondents in sanctioning and disbursing the pension and other retirement benefits that are due to the applicant is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and irrational and that the same violates Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

Direct the respondents to sanction, draw and disburse the monthly pension and other retirement benefits including Gratuity, Commuted Value of Pension, Cash on Earned Leave Surrender, Provident Fund etc. forthwith, at any rate, within a time frame prescribed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

Direct the respondents to pay interest @ 18% on delayed payments of pension and other retirement benefits as also exemplary costs.

Such other relief as may be prayed for and this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit to grant.

Grant the cost of this Original Application.

The matter first came up for admission before this Tribunal on 30.05.2019. Thereafter sufficient opportunities were given to the respondents to file a reply statement on the issue. On 25.09.2019 the Single Bench noted that inspite of three adjournments being given, the learned counsel for the respondents had not filed any reply or short reply but were simply opposing the grant of interim relief to the applicant. Hence, after hearing both sides, the Single Bench recorded that there was no reason to oppose the grant of interim relief. The respondents were directed to release pensionary benefits including commuted value of pension within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order subject to no departmental proceedings pending against the applicant. After this order was passed by the Single Bench on 25.09.2019, the respondents filed a counsel statement on 30.10.2019 followed by a reply statement dated 26.11.2019. Their main explanation/contention in the reply statement is that there has been no intentional delay caused from their side in disbursing the pension and other retirement benefits of the applicant. It was submitted that the Engineer-in-Chief of the organization (MES) has to accept the resignation of the applicant and centralisation of service book and verification of qualifying service was time consuming. It is submitted that the Engineer-in-Chief's Branch at Delhi vide letter dated 17.10.2019, produced at Annexure R-1, had since accorded ex post facto sanction of voluntary retirement of the individual.

It is submitted by the respondents that the applicant had applied for voluntary retirement on 16.12.2016 and had proceeded on retirement on his own accord with effect from 01.04.2017 without waiting the formal acceptance of the 'resignation' from the competent authority. It is submitted that in case of voluntary retirement from service the resignation has to be accepted by the competent authority and only then the pension papers are processed. For the acceptance of voluntary retirement from service by the competent authority the essential documents are the verification of qualifying service for pension, centralisation of service books, vigilance clearance and integrity clearance. After all these were done in the case, it is submitted that the Engineer-in-Chief accorded ex post facto sanction of voluntary retirement from service. The pension papers are being processed at the earliest on priority. It is reiterated that the applicant had proceeded on voluntary retirement after he submitted his letter dated 16.12.2016, with effect from 01.04.2017, without acceptance of the 'resignation' from the competent authority and clearance from the department. He has also applied for family pension on 03.01.2018. It was the non acceptance of the 'resignation' by the competent authority that meant that the pension papers could not be processed. The applicant has been asked to produce all the requisite documents which are mandatory for preparation and completion of pension papers and other retirement benefits. It is only now that the ex post facto sanction of the Engineer-in-Chief's Branch has been obtained, that the office of Chief Engineer Jodhpur Zone approached the applicant for submission of the requisite documents.

As indicated in the submissions above, the applicable rules in this matter is Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which was prevailing at that time. Rule 48 reads (partly) as follows :

“48. Retirement on completion of 30 years' qualifying service

(1) At any time after a Government servant has completed thirty years' qualifying service -

(a) he may retire from service, or

(b) he may be required by the Appointing Authority to retire in the public interest and in the case of such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to a retiring pension :

Provided that -

(a) a Government servant shall give a notice in writing to the Appointing Authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire; and

(b) the Appointing Authority may also give a notice in writing to a Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire in the public interest or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice:

Provided further that where the Government servant giving notice under Clause (a) of the preceding proviso is under suspension, it shall be open to the Appointing Authority to withhold permission to such Government servant to retire under this rule..............”

It has been submitted by the applicant that the above Rule does not require, anywhere, that the concerned Government Department has to accept the notice for retirement in case the period exceeds the three months. This is the situation which is applicable clearly in his case. The application for voluntary retirement was dated 16.12.2016 and the retirement was to come into effect from 31.03.2017. Further, there was no disciplinary proceedings drawn or proposed to be drawn against him nor was he under suspension. Thus, in these circumstances it is to be presumed that the Department has allowed voluntary retirement of the Government servant from the date that was indicated. It is only in the case of the following Rule 48-A, which relates to those Government servants who have completed 20 years of qualifying service, that it made clear in Rule 48-A(2) that the notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the Appointing Authority. Even in this Rule, if the Appointing Authority does not refuse to grant permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. It is acceptable to this Bench that the Rules do not appear to require a formal acceptance as being made out by the respondents. The respondents have also made no distinction between the 'Voluntary Retirement' prayed for by the applicant and acceptance of his 'resignation' as they term it in their reply. These two terms have completely different conotations in the context of Government employees. In addition, the respondents by emphasising that the voluntary retirement needed formal acceptance have put the matter further into naught, because, in that case, they should have later, at the level of Engineer-in-Chief not accepted the notice for voluntary retirement later as he had simply proceeded on the same with effect from 01.04.2017. They should have initiated disciplinary proceedings on the other hand against the applicant for unauthorized absence by proceeding on retirement without permission. Instead of that, it thus appears to this Bench that there has been unexplained delay on the part of the respondents in dealing with the matter due to either incompetence or deliberate inaction. Whatever be the case, they have later taken steps to grant the due pension to the applicant, and thus, the main relief sought for has since been granted by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicant however brings to notice that the relief sought at serial No.3 in the array, was to direct the respondents to pay interest @ 18% on delayed payments of pension and other retirement benefits, as also exemplary costs. This, it is contended, is the only remaining relief at this stage as the respondents have since sanctioned the pension and the applicant has been receiving the same. In the context of the details brought out, this Bench is inclined to agree to allow this relief to the applicant. The respondents are directed to pay the applicant interest for the delayed payment of pension with effect from 01.04.2017 till the specific date that the arrears of pension from 01.04.2017 was credited to the bank account of the applicant. They may however pay interest at the interest rate at 9.5% instead of 18% as prayed for. This specific action should be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further due to the delay in payment, I feel it necessary to suggest that rather than Government department meeting the interest costs, it is for the respondents to identify the person/persons responsible for the said delay. It may be considered whether the amount to be paid as interest to the applicant could be recovered from the said individual(s) within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, I leave the decision on this to the respondents. In any case the amount due to the applicant as interest should be first paid not withstanding any decision on the said recovery being made from the person/persons responsible. In other words the payment to the applicant should not await the recovery, if any, from the person/persons before the said payment is done. This is being specified to ensure that there is no further delay in the payment of interest to the applicant.

With these directions, the O.A is allowed to the extent indicated. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Dated this the 18th day of May 2022)