Vimla Devi vs Union Of India & Ors

Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Shri M.K. Updhayay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

Through this OA the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-

“i. This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to release her family pension with effect from 03.02.2014 with all consequential benefits.

ii. This Hon’ble may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to give arrears of pension with effect from 03.02.2014 alongwith the interest of 18% per annum from the date of due to actual payment.

iii. To issue another writ, order or direction in favour of the applicant as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

iv. Award the cost of application in favour of the applicant”.

Referring to the relief clause learned counsel for the applicant argued that relief No. 1 has been redressed by the respondents. Relief No. 2 is redressed only to the extent of payment of arrear. It was next argued that no interest on the delayed payment has been made by the respondents. Thus, prayer was made to direct the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment.

Learned counsel for the respondents, referring to order dated 03.05.2018 passed by this Tribunal argued that on direction of the Court PPO was issued on 14.08.2018 itself, arrear of the pension was paid on 15.10.2018, in compliance of the order dated 03.05.2018. Thus there is no delay in payment of retiral dues and no questions arise to pay interest. He further argued that the name of the applicant has not been disclosed by the deceased employee in the service record and due to this reason the payment could not be made in time.

I have considered the rival submission of learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the entire records.

Perusal of the order dated 03.05.2018 reveals that representation said to have been moved by the applicant was pending before the respondents way back since 2014. As no order was passed on the representation said to have been moved by the applicant, the present OA has been filed.

As has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant there is no need to pass any order with respect to relief No. 1. As regards to relief No. 2, the respondents have paid the arrears of the pension, thus, there remains only to decide as to whether the applicant is entitled for interest on the delayed payment. If the facts disclosed in the order dated 03.05.2018 and documents annexed with the OA are taken into consideration in the light of the submission made across the bar, it is evident that applicant’s representation before the respondents was pending since 11.12.2014. It was not decided in time and the payment was made after filing the present OA in the year 2018. Thus, it cannot be said in the matter that there is no delay in making the payment. It is also mentioned that relief No. 1 has been granted meaning thereby there is no dispute between the parties regarding the status of the applicant.

In view of the above the OA is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of arrears of pension from the date it become due till the actual payment @ 6% per annum within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.