Ram Shanker Shukla vs State of U.P. and Others

We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.

It appears from the pleadings as well as documents annexed with writ petition that the petitioner who was working as Tehsildar, was promoted on the post of Deputy Collector on 12.11.1986. However, during service, he was served with two charge sheets dated 22.8.1989 and 28.8.1989. He was not held guilty during the inquiry but the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the inquiry report issued a show cause to deduct 25% amount from the pension, the petitioner was entitled to receive. The petitioner submitted a reply but finally disciplinary authority passed the order deducting 25% of pension. Petitioner challenged the order before the State Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No.20207 of 1997 which was also rejected.

The said order was questioned by way of writ petition No.59 (S/B) of 2004 which was allowed on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to get a show cause notice when the disciplinary authority disagreed with the inquiry report and thus the Division Bench quashed the order passed by the Tribunal as also the one passed by the disciplinary authority dated 4.10.1995 and granted liberty to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order while keeping in view the observation made in the judgment. Thus, towards the said directions, the disciplinary authority passed the order on 20.9.2011 closing the departmental inquiry pending against the petitioner without imposing any punishment. Thereafter, the petitioner vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition, submitted representation to the Secretary, Board of Revenue to claim interest on the post retrial dues paid after 22 years from the date of retirement.

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was made to suffer for no fault on his part for 22 years, therefore, he was entitled to get interest on the post retrial dues for the said period since the date of his retirement. Learned counsel also submitted that on his representation as aforesaid, the competent authority has not passed any order.

On the other hand, learned counsel for State submitted that the delay in payment of post retrial dues was not caused on account of negligence on the part of State but the said period of 22 years was taken only in departmental proceedings and the judicial process. Learned counsel also submitted that if there was any delay in payment of the dues after passing of order by the competent authority in terms of direction given by the High Court then certainly the petitioner would be entitled to get interest on the post retrial dues.

Learned counsel referred to a judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court reported in R. Veerabhadram Vs. Govt. of A.P., The relevant observations and discussions which may have bearing on the instant case are contained in paragraph 7 of the judgment which on reproduction reads as under :

The payment of gratuity was withheld, in the present case, since the criminal prosecution was pending against the appellant when he retired. Rule 52(1) (c) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 expressly permits the State to withhold gratuity during the pendency of any judicial proceedings against the employee. In the present case, apart from Rule 52(1) (c), there was also an express order of the Tribunal which was binding on the appellant and the respondent under which the Tribunal had directed the death-cum-retirement gratuity was not to be paid to the appellant till the judicial proceedings were concluded and final orders were passed thereon. In view of this order as well as in view of Rule 52(1) (c), it cannot be said that there was any illegal withholding of gratuity by the respondent in the case of the appellant. We, therefore, do not see any reason to order payment of any interest on the amount of gratuity so withheld.

On due consideration of rival submissions, we are of the view that there was no delay on the part of respondent-State in payment of post retrial dues. The petitioner was issued charge sheets and he faced the inquiry which initially resulted in deduction of 25% pension amount. The order was upheld vide the order passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal. Besides, the petitioner got relief only under the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court as aforesaid and thereafter pursuant thereto the respondents passed the order well within time and again the payment was also made without wasting any time in terms of the judgment(supra). Thus, if there is no fault on the part of employer State, it is not under obligation to pay any interest on delay in payment of post retrial dues.

The writ petition is thus dismissed.