Satvir Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

Briefly stated,  the facts of the current  O.A.  are that the applicant was appointed to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the year 1976 in the Department of Customs & Central Excise. He got promoted as Inspector in the year 1981 and thereafter was promoted to the post of Superintendent in the year 2002.

The applicant submits that he was falsely implicated in FIR No. R.C. 34(A)/89/CBI/ACB/New Delhi u/s 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 in the year 1989. He was acquitted from all the charges mentioned in the said FIR vide judgment dated 11.03.1999 of the Ld. Trial Court. Against this order, Central Bureau of Investigation filed the Criminal Appeal No. 337/1999 before the Hon"ble High Court of Delhi, who set aside the Ld. Trial Court order dated 11.03.1999 and convicted the applicant vide their order dated 07.01.2011. Thereafter, the applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 920/2011 before the Apex Court challenging the order (dated 07.01.2011) of the Hon"ble High Court of Delhi.

Subsequent to conviction of the applicant in criminal case, Respondent No.4 dismissed the applicant from service w.e.f. 27.05.2011, who crossed the date of superannuation on 31.05.2011. On the request of the applicant, respondent No.4 issued Order dated 07.12.2011sanctioning compassionate pension plus dearness relief to the applicant and forwarded the same to the Pay & Accounts Officer, Central Pension Accounting Office vide letter dated 23.10.2012.

Hon"ble  Supreme  Court vide  judgment  dated  20.08.2014  in Criminal Appeal No. 920/2011 restored the judgment and order of acquittal of the Ld. Trial Court and set aside the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2011 and order of sentence dated 08.03.2011 of Hon"ble High Court of Delhi in Cr. Appeal No. 337/1999.

Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued an order dated 10.11.2014 regarding the suspension/dismissal period of the applicant as „period spent on duty for all intent and purposes". Vide order dated 28.04.2015 of respondent No. 4, the applicant has been sanctioned an amount of Rs.4,24,010/- towards leave encashment. Respondent No. 3 issued an order dated 02.06.2015 whereby the applicant was sanctioned revised pension of Rs.14,040/- w.e.f. 01.06.2011. The applicant was also sanctioned interest on delayed payment of arrears of gratuity, pension and leave encashment. However, the applicant could not get the interest on delayed payments, hence he made a representation dated 11.09.2015 to respondent No.4, raising grievance regarding interest on delayed payment of retiral dues. The representation was rejected on 29.02.2016 on the ground that the PAO (respondent No. 3) has rejected the claim of interest on retiral dues as per CCS (Pension) Rules. The applicant then represented to respondent No. 2 raising the same issue of interest on delayed payment of interest but to no avail.

The applicant has placed reliance on Rule-68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and decision of the Government of India, mentioned under Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which are reproduced below:-

"(1) In all cases where the payment of gratuity has been authorised later than the date when its payment becomes due, including the cases of retirement otherwise than on superannuation, and it is clearly established that the delay in payment was attributable to administrative reasons or lapses, interest shall be paid at the rate applicable to General Provident Fund amount in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time:

Provided that the delay in payment was not caused on account of failure on the part of the Government servant to comply with the procedure laid down by the Government for processing his pension papers.

(2) Every case of delayed payment of gratuity shall be considered by the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry or the Department in respect of its employees and the employees of its attached and subordinate offices and where the Secretary of the Ministry or the Department is satisfied that the delay in the payment of gratuity was caused on account of ^[administrative reasons or lapse], the Secretary of the Ministry or the Department shall sanction payment of interest.

(3) The Administrative Ministry or the Department shall issue Presidential sanction for the payment of interest after the Secretary has sanctioned the payment of interest under sub-rule (2).

(4) In all cases where the payment of interest has been sanctioned by the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry or the Department, such Ministry or the Department shall fix the responsibility and take disciplinary action against the Government servant or servants who are found responsible for the delay in the payment of gratuity."

The applicant submits that his retiral benefits were withheld due to his conviction in the criminal case. But since the conviction has been set aside by the Hon"ble Supreme Court, he is entitled to retiral benefits, with interest, from the date of superannuation to the date of actual payment. The applicant also contends that the order dated 10.11.2014 of respondent No. 4 itself states that the entire suspension and dismissal period has been treated as "spent on duty for all intent and purpose" till the date of superannuation. In such a situation the order dated 29.02.2016 of respondent No. 4 shows non-application of mind and is bad in law.

The applicant is also placing reliance on the Government of India Instructions issued vide Dept. of Per. & A.R. O.M. No. F.7(1)-P.U./79 dated 1107.1979 and No.1(4)/Pen.Unit/82 dated 10.01.1983. He has also placed reliance on Government of India Instructions issued vide G.I. Dept. of P.P.W., O.M. No. F.7/1/93P.P.W.(F) dated 25.08.1994. Further, the applicant has cited the judgment of Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2008)(3)SCC 44, Hon"ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ram Kishan Vs. UOI & Ors. [WP(C) No. 9767/2015 decided on 07.12.2015 and of the Tribunal in the case of Bhram Dutt Yadav Vs. GNCTD (OA-3029/2013 decided on 28.03.2016) and in the case of Brijendra Singh Vs. UOI (OA-1611/2011) decided on 20.09.2011), in support of the relief prayed for by him.

Rebutting these averments, the respondents have stated that the applicant was placed under suspension w.e.f. 08.03.2011 in regard to a criminal case and was dismissed from service w.e.f. 27.05.2011. His acquittal by the Trial Court was set aside by the Hon"ble High Court. However, Hon"ble Supreme Court acquitted the applicant from all the charges on 20.08.2014. After this order, the respondents issued a sanction order dated 28.04.2015 conveying treating of suspension/dismissal period from 08.03.2011 to 31.05.2011, "as period spent on duty for all intents and purposes". They also initiated action to pay him the remaining 1/3rd of the superannuation pension and gratuity in the month of July and September, 2015. They state that there was no delay on part of the respondents in releasing the remaining dues. The respondents submit that they themselves have treated the case of the applicant for payment of interest on delayed payment under Rule 68 of CCS (Pension) Rules. As per the provisions of Rule (2) of 68 CCS (Pension) Rules, grant of interest on delayed payment of gratuity is to be considered. However, as per DoP&T note dated 02.08.1999 there is no provision under CCS (Leave) Rules for payment of interest on delayed payment of leave encashment on retirement.

I have carefully considered the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the pleadings.

It is not disputed that the applicant was acquitted from the charges by the Hon"ble Trial Court which decision, has been confirmed by the Hon"ble Supreme Court vide their order dated 20.08.2014.

In my view the legal position raised in the current O.A. stands settled by various citations relied upon by the applicant, ratio of which needs to be followed in letter and spirit in the instant case also.

The issue regarding grant of interest on delayed payment of retiral dues has been succinctly dealt with in para-9 of Vijayender Singh Rathee Vs. UOI & Ors., (OA-345/2016) dated 05.10.2017, which is reproduced below:-

"In view of the fact that the charge against him has not been proved and taking cognizance of the same, the Tribunal has also directed the respondents to release all his retiral dues, which had been done by the respondents in March, 2015, it is only logical that the applicant be granted interest on all such delayed payments. The respondents cannot be allowed to take shelter under the OM dated 05.10.1999 of Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare for denying the payment of interest to the applicant. This issue is no more res integra since it has been decided by this Tribunal in Suraj Bhan (supra) and Tribunal"s order has been duly upheld by the Hon"ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.3776/2015."

The applicant has also relied upon the  landmark judgment of Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2008 (3) SCC 44 holding that:-

"14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well-founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of bounty is, in our opinion, well-founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents."

(emphasis supplied)

The applicant in his O.A. and rejoinder has given the dates/period for which he is claiming interest. The same is reproduced below:-

Head

Amount

Period for which applicant is entitled for interest from the date of eligibility to the date of actual payment

Gratuity

Rs.4,57,435/-

01.06.2011 to 21.12.2011

Arrear of Gratuity

Rs.2,42,183/-

01.06.2011 to 02.09.2015

Leave Encashment

Rs.4,24,010/-

01.06.2011 to 09.06.2015

Pension

Rs.14,040/-(-)Rs.9,180

Rs.4,860/-

(i)     Rs.4,50,715/-

(ii)   (ii)Rs.3,24,112/-

01.06.2011 to 24.07.2015

25.07.2015 to 26.08.2015

Taking into account the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to get the interest on delayed payments of gratuity and arrears of gratuity, leave encashment and pension, as claimed by him

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay interest to the applicant on these amounts, at GPF rate, after due verification, as per law. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The O.A. is accordingly allowed. No costs.