Satpal Antil vs Union Of India & Others

Hina P Shah, Member J

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:- OA No. 691/2016 "(i) That respondents be directed to allow interest on delayed payments @ 12% per annum on the amount for the period shown in Para 4.(vi) & 4.(x) by adjusting Rs.1,14,553/- by quashing letter dated 11/08/2016 (Annexure-A/1) with all consequential benefits.

(ii) Any other order, direction or relief may be passed in favour of the applicant which may be deemed fit, just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) That the costs of this application may be awarded."

The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that he had by way of filing OA No. 28/2007 challenged the charge memo dated 16.01.2007. This Tribunal vide order dated 11.05.2011 directed the respondents to conclude the departmental enquiry within six months failing which charge sheet dated 16.01.2007 shall be deemed to be quashed and set aside. The respondents had also filed Misc. Application seeking extension of time and this Tribunal vide its order dated 22.11.2011 granted further three months' time, failing which charge memo shall be deemed to be quashed and set aside without referring to the Tribunal. The said order of this Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench vide its order dated 19.08.2014 and, thereafter, respondents dropped the OA No. 691/2016 proceedings vide order dated 10.12.2014 and released retirement benefits in February, 2015 without any interest. In the meanwhile, applicant retired on 30.06.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. He was paid various pensionary benefits including Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Commutation. OA No. 640/2012 has also been filed by the applicant praying for grant of MACP benefits and this Tribunal vide its order dated 13.05.2014 disposed of the OA allowing said benefits and the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench dismissed DBCWP No. 9468/2014 filed by respondents vide its order dated 28.01.2015 and thereafter the respondents extended the benefits of Rs. 2,13,069/- in the month of April 2015. Thereafter, again applicant made request to respondents vide letter dated 09.02.2015 & 25.07.2015 for grant of interest on delayed payments. Again applicant approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 555/2015, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide its order dated 24.09.2015 with a direction to respondents to decide the representation of the applicant. The representation of the applicant was considered by respondents and respondents paid Rs.1,14,553/- on gratuity and vide letter dated 11.08.2016, Annexure A/1, informed the OA No. 691/2016 applicant that payment of interest on DCRG already been paid to him, and there is no provision in Rules to provide interest on leave encashment. Thus, applicant has approached this Tribunal for interest on delayed payments.

The respondents state that the facts of payments are not disputed and further state that the case of the applicant was forwarded by CPMG, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur to Postal Directorate, New Delhi for payment of interest on delayed payment of Gratuity vide letter dated 26.11.2015 and the Directorate vide letter dated 13.04.2016 conveyed sanction of Rs. 1,14,553/- to the applicant towards interest on delayed payment of DCRG as per provision of Rule 68 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and said payments were made to the applicant vide memo dated 25.04.2016. As there is no provision in the rules for payment of interest on delayed payment of Leave Encashment, the same cannot be paid as it is not admissible under the rules. Calculation Sheet of interest under DCRG has been enclosed as Annexure R/2. Thus, applicant has been made all payments and now nothing remains to be paid. Therefore, the present O.A. deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and examined the material available on record.

The short controversy in the present matter is about payment of interest on delayed payments of DCRG, Leave Encashment and Commutation.

As seen, the factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 16.01.2007 and this Tribunal vide order dated 11.05.2011 in OA No. 28/2007 directed the respondents to conclude departmental enquiry within six months, failing which charge sheet dated 16.01.2007 will be deemed to be quashed and set aside and vide order dated 22.11.2011, further three months' time was granted by this Tribunal in Misc. Application filed by respondents. Respondents preferred DBCWP No. 11747/2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench challenging the order of this Tribunal and the same was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 19.08.2014.

In the meanwhile, applicant had retired on 30.06.2013 on superannuation. Respondents thereafter dropped the charge memo and made payments of Gratuity amounting to Rs. 9,87,525/-, OA No. 691/2016 Leave Encashment Rs. 5,98,500/- and Commutation Rs. 6,45,822/- vide memos dated 04.02.2015 and 05.02.2015. Applicant had also approached this Tribunal for grant of MACP benefits and the same were allowed to him amounting to Rs. 2,13,069/- in the month of April 2015. Thereafter, applicant made a request to respondents for payment of interest in delayed payments, but no action was taken by respondents.

Applicant again approached this Tribunal and this Tribunal in OA No. 555/2015 vide its order dated 24.09.2015 directed the respondent No. 2 to decide representation of the applicant. Accordingly, applicant vide letter dated 29.09.2015 made available copy of order dated 24.09.2015 to respondent No. 2. The respondents paid Rs. 1,14,553/- towards interest on gratuity amount in the month of April 2016. Again applicant vide letter dated 28.07.2016 made request for allowing interest on leave encashment and to produce calculation sheet on allowed DCRG. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 informed the applicant vide letter dated 11.08.2016, Annexure A/1, that interest on DCRG has been already paid and that there is no provision under the rules to provide OA No. 691/2016 interest on leave encashment. Applicant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in the case of Dr. Lok Nath Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. (DBCWP No. 1352/2014), wherein the Hon'ble High Court in similar matter has allowed Writ Petition allowing interest @ 9% on delayed payments of DCRG as well as leave encashment from the date of retirement until actual payment vide order dated 18.05.2015. Applicant states that as his case is similar to that of Dr. Lok Nath Sharma, he is also entitled for the said benefits.

We find that now the issue has been narrowed down only towards payment of interest on leave encashment. Towards interest on retirement gratuity, applicant demands the calculation sheet as to the rate at which interest is provided. It is seen that the respondents have paid interest on retirement gratuity as per rate of interest admissible under the provisions of rules and calculation sheet has been annexed at Annexure R/2. As far as the case of Dr. Lok Nath Sharma is concerned, it is clear that the facts of Dr. Lok Nath Sharma are not applicable to the present case in hand. In Dr. Lok Nath Sharma's case, charge sheet was issued to the applicant on 21.07.2009 and OA No. 691/2016 he retired on 31.07.2009 on the malafide act of the respondents whereas in the present case, the charge sheet was issued to the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 16.01.2007 and applicant retired on 30.06.2013 and there was no allegation of issuance of charge sheet on any malafide act of the disciplinary authority. Thus, benefits of the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court cannot be made applicable in the present case.

As far as question of interest on leave encashment is concerned, the applicant has failed to provide any rules to that effect and in absence of any rules, the applicant is not entitled for any interest on the same. As far as order of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench dated 19.08.2014 in DBCWP No. 11747/2012 is concerned, it clearly stated that to release all retiral benefits which are withheld because of pending disciplinary enquiry and the Hon'ble High Court has not stated that even if rules do not provide for payment of interest on leave encashment, the same should be granted dehors the rules. Also if the same are ordered in a particular case be it in Dr. Lok Nath Sharma's case, but the same cannot be a ground that it should apply in the present case also as the OA No. 691/2016 facts and circumstances of the said case are completely different from the present case and, thus, when no rules provide for grant of interest on leave encashment, the same cannot be ordered to be given.

In view of the observations made herein above, the impugned order dated 11.08.2016, (Annexure A/1), is just and proper and, thus, Original Application filed by the applicant being devoid of merits deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.