AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
By way of the instant original application, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs: -
“i). To direct the respondent no. 4 A.G.M (HR), B.S.N.L, O/o G.M.T.D, Allahabad to delete the word “Provisionally” from the sixth line of the impugned letter No. Q722/Pen/1180323/198110366/KW/03/Alld dated 31.7.2015 (Annexure No. 1) and further direct the respondent no. 5 A.G.M (Sales), B.S.N.L, O/o G.M.T.D,, Allahabad to delete the word “Provisionally” from the impugned letter No. Ma.Aa (Sales) Staff/2015 Allahabad dated 31.7.2015 (Annexure No. A-2) and accordingly issue fresh orders/letters.
ii). To direct the respondents to issue Pension Payment Order (P.P.O) forthwith in favour of the applicant.
iii). To direct the respondents to pay other retiral benefits i.e. the amount of DCRG, Commuted valu of Pension, GSLIS (Group Saving Linked Insurance Scheme) alongwith 18% interest.
iv). To direct the respondent to pay interest on delayed payment of G.P.F on 14.12.2015.
v). To pass any other and further orders this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
vi). To award cost of the petition.”
At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant referring to the order of this Tribunal dated 11.02.2019 has submitted that the though the applicant retired on 31.07.2015, but the respondents have complied with the relief no (i), (ii) and (iii) during the pendency of the OA except prayer for 18% interest. He also submitted that though the entire retiral dues have been paid to the applicant, the respondents did not pay interest accrued thereon. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is entitled for interest on delayed payment from the date of retirement i.e. 31.07.2015 till the date it was actually paid. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrota Vs. State of U.P. and Others – 2002 SCC (L&S) 278 .
Shri D.S. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand has argued that the applicant is not entitled for any interest said to have been accrued on delayed payment of pensionary benefits because he had not submitted ‘no dues certificate’.Some charges were also pending against the applicant at the time of his retirement. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the OA , as aforesaid.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the applicant.
It is not disputed that the entire retiral dues have been paid to the applicant after his retirement during pendency of the OA. Learned counsel for the parties are unable to produce the actual date of payment of retiral dues. Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment passed in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra has held as under: -
“3. In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of 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 the instant case, the applicant was retired on 31.07.2015 and the OA was filed in the year 2016 and as per the admission of the learned counsel for the parties, the retiral dues have been paid to the applicant during pendency of the OA, there is absolutely certain delay in making payment of retiral dues.
In view of the forgoing reasons, the OA is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay 6% simple interest on the entire retiral dues to the applicant from the date of his retirement i.e. 31.07.2015 till the date it was actually paid to him.
No order as to costs.