Full Judgment
1 M.C.C No. 2491/2007 20.9.2012 Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Surabhi Ahirkar, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri P. Shankaran, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
Heard.
This review petition is directed against the order dated 14.9.2007 passed in W.P. No. 8194/2006 (S).The Writ Petition: W.P. No. 8194/2006 (S) was filed for a direction to the respondents to release pension and gratuity and pay interest thereon at the rate of 21 % from the date due until its realization. Petition emanated from the grievance espoused by the petitioner that having retired as Principal, Shashkiya AdaRs. Vigyan Mahavidyalaya, Rewa on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.7.2003 and despite of issuance of Pension Payment Order on 25.8.2003, the petitioner for no fault of his was deprived of pension and gratuity as authorized vide said Pension Payment Order. It was urged that as per Rule 57 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 the respondents (employer) were required to prepare pension papers and ought to have completed and forwarded to the Audit Officer in accordance with Rule 59. It was urged that as per Pension Payment Order dated 25.8.2003 amount of Rs.3,55,000/ was due towards gratuity and Rs.8261/ towards pension till 12.7.2008 and Rs.5490/ w.e.f. 13.7.2008. 2 In the petition it was urged that after his retirement the petitioner moved to Mirzapur, State of Uttar Pradesh and accordingly made a request for transfer of his pension to Mirzapur vide communication dated 9.3.2004. It was stated that the matter of the petitioner since was No. transferred he repeatedly represented on 5.7.2004, 3.8.2004, 5.11.2004 and 10.1.2005. Petitioner in response to representation dated 10.1.2005 was informed by Senior Treasury Officer, Rewa vide his letter dated 11.5.2005 that his matter was dispatched to Accountant General, M.P. Bhopal vide registered A/D dated 6.9.2003. It was informed that since the Accountant General has informed that the same was not received in his office, permission was sought to issue duplicate pension payment order. That since the above efforts did not bear any fruitful result, the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition before this Court vide W.P. No. 8194/2006 (S).On being noticed, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while raising a preliminary objection as to maintainability of petition also made their submission on merit. It was stated that Treasury Officer, Rewa vide letter dated 9.3.2004 was informed that pension and gratuity payment orders purported to have been sent by Treasury Officer, Rewa was not received in the office of Accountant General (A & E)II M.P. Gwalior. It was further stated that even duplicate pension and gratuity payment orders were not sent to the office of respondent No. 2 although the proposal for the same was sent by Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts vide its letter dated 22.10.2005. It was accordingly stated that since the respondents No. 2 was No. in possession of any duplicate pension and gratuity payment order, little could be done by them. 3 Subsequently, vide I.A. No. 7576/2007 filed on 17.8.2007 it was stated on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that after much persuasion, the Treasury officer, Rewa forwarded duplicate pension and gratuity payment order to the office of respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 8.6.2007; the same were, however, returned to the Treasury Office on 27.6.2007 due to certain omission therein. It was further stated that on receipt of said pension and gratuity payment order after fulfilling the formalities as required from the Treasury vide letter dated 27.4.2007 necessary advice has been issued by respondent No. 2 to Accountant General (A & E)II, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad vide letter dated 6.8.2007 for arranging payment of pension and gratuity to the petitioner from Mirzapur.
It was further stated that since effective steps have been taken and the petitioner had been intimated of the same, the petition is liable to be dismissed having rendered infructuous.
Taking note of above stand, learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.9.2007 disposed of writ petition has having been rendered infructuous; however, a liberty was granted to the petitioner that if the amount which has been paid is still insufficient, petitioner shall have his liberty to file a fresh case. The review petition is filed on the ground that on 14.9.2007 no payment was made to the petitioner and the entire matter was in fluid state. It is urged that since error on the face of record has crept in the order in recording a finding that payment of pension and gratuity has been made, the same be recalled.
Vide I.A. No. 8925/2012 filed by the petitioner, we are informed that subsequent to the order dated 14.9.2007, on 22.10.2007 Cheque No. 101647 dated 22.10.2007 for an amount of Rs.9,97,016/ was sent to 4 petitioner and was credited in his account on 26.10.2007. The same was in lieu of pension for the period April 2004 to September 2007 (Amount Rs.6,47,016) and towards gratuity (Rs.3,50,000/). Thus, in substance the major grievance of the petitioner seems to have been settled during pendency of present M.C.C. However, it is not to be so, as it is contended by learned Senior Counsel that, there is unexplained delay in disbursing the amount of pension and gratuity, which the petitioner was entitled for under Rule 74 of Rules, 1976 from the date of his retirement. It is urged that the delay caused by the respondents has deprived him of his rightful pension and gratuity which he earned after serving the respondents for years. It is further contended that pension and gratuity being No. bounty the petitioner could No. have been deprived. The petitioner claims interest for the period from the date of his entitlement till the amount has been credited to the petitioner's account, i.e., 26.10.2007.
Respondents, however, oppose the relief claimed.
It is urged that since the petitioner is already set at liberty to file a fresh claim in case he is No. satisfied with the amount paid to him, the claim for interest cannot be made in a review petition. Though an attempt is being made to explain the reasons for nongrant of pension, we, however, find from various correspondence that they are not sufficint as the same reflect the procedural lapse on the part of respondent Nos. 2 and 4. We are also not inclined to accept the submission putforth on behalf of respondents, for the reason that the pension and gratuity being not a bounty and are required to be paid to the incumbent within the statutory outer limit fixed for settlement. It was the bounden duty of respondents to have ensured that the petitioner who retired from 5 service has been tendered his due within the statutory period. In the case at hand the same having not been done and there is unexplained delay of approximately four years the period for which petitioner is deprived of his rightful due he would be entitled for the interest for the said period, which was also claimed by him in the writ petition. We are fortified by the Supreme Court.
In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India and another (2003) 3 SCC 148 wherein it is held that “Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him”. (Paragraph 18). And that in a review petition interest can be awarded, as has been held in Food Corporation of India and another v. M/s. Seil Ltd. and others (AIR 2008 SC 1101) that: “17. Article 14 of the Constitution of India has received a liberal interpretation over the yeaRs. Its scope has also been expanded by creative interpretation of the court. The law has developed in this field to a great extent. In this case, no disputed question of fact is involved. The High Court, in an appropriate case, may grant such relief to which the writ petitioner would be entitled to in law as well as in equity. We do not, thus, find any substance in the contention of Mr. Sharan that while exercising its review jurisdiction, no interest on the principal sum could have been directed to be granted by the High Court.
A writ court exercises its power of Review under Article 226 of the 6 Constitution of India itself.
While exercising the said jurisdiction, it not only acts as a court of law but also as a court of equity. A clear error or omission on the part of the court to consider a justifiable claim on its part would be subject to review; amongst others on the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit (An act of the courts shall prejudice none). We appreciate the manner in which the learned Judge accepted his mistake and granted relief to the respondents.”
In view whereof we are inclined to dispose of the present review petition with a direction that the petitioner shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 8.5 % from August 2003 till 26.10.2007 on the amount towards pension and gratuity. The interest shall be equally shared by respondent Nos. 2 and 5.
Let the said amount towards interest be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
Review petition is finally disposed of in above terms. No costs.
C.c. as per rules.
(AJIT SINGH ) (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE JUDGE VT/