G. Shanthappa, Member, (J)
1. The above OA is filed by the applicant under Sec.19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the legality and propriety of the order No.C/2-19/2005-06 dated 26.4.2010 passed by the third respondent and further relief of direction to the respondents to pay interest to the applicant for the belated payment of retirement service benefits for the periods from 1.4.2006 till the interest amount has been realized by the applicant.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. The admitted facts of the case from either side are that the applicant while working as Mail Overseer, Avadi Camp, Sub-Division was served with the Memorandum of Charges dated 15.3.2006. The applicant submitted his representation dated 22.3.2006 and denied the charges leveled against him. On 29.3.2006, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices (SSPO) had issued an order and dropped the Memorandum of Charges dated 15.3.2006 without prejudice to any further departmental action. On the same day on 29.3.2006, the SSPO, Tambaram Division issued a Memorandum of Charges under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to the applicant. In the meanwhile, the applicant retired from service on attaining the age superannuation on 31.3.2006. The applicant submitted his representation dated 16.5.2006. Considering the said representation, the departmental proceedings were continued under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Hon’ble President being the disciplinary authority, after considering the case with reference to the provision of Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the charges framed against the applicant cannot be construed as a grave misconduct justifying continuation of the proceedings under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Hon’ble President was pleased to drop the proceedings vide order dated 21.8.2008. In continuation of the said order, the SSPO had issued the communication dated 15/17.9.2008. The applicant submitted his representation dated 13.4.2010 for payment of interest at the rate of 12% p.a. for the delay in payment of dues from the date of retirement upto the date of actual statement of retirement benefits (Annexure A9). The said representation was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 26.4.2010 by assigning the reason that there is no delay in payment of retrial benefits, no interest could be allowed. Subsequently, the applicant requested the Secretary and Director General of Post Offices by way of representation dated 7.5.2001 for issue of order for payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.
4. It is the grievance of the applicant was since the departmental proceedings against him were dropped, he is entitled for payment of retirement benefits from the date of superannuation on 31.3.2006. The third respondent had wantonly initiated proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and converted the said charges into Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. There is no mistake or mis-representation on the part of the applicant and hence the respondent are liable to compensate the applicant for the belated payment of retirement service benefits by paying the interest on the said amount. The impugned of rejection of payment of interest as requested by the applicant is illegal, against Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.
5. Per contra, the respondents have filed a detailed reply statement supporting the impugned order. They have admitted that the applicant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2006. The departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant while he was in service which was dropped after retirement of the applicant as per the provisions of Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 be continued and report submitted to the Directorate for issue of Presidential order. In the preliminary hearing held in the disciplinary case on 22.6.2006, the applicant admitted the charges unconditionally. The IO submitted his report dated 30.9.2006 holding the charges against the applicant as proved. In the representation dated 21.9.2006 to the enquiry report also, the applicant admitted the charges. All the documents were forwarded to the first respondent on 18.7.2007 for arranging issue of Presidential order under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. As per the Presidential order communicated to the applicant vide Memo dated 21.8.2008 of the first respondent, disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were ordered to be dropped. On receipt of the Presidential order, the third respondent had taken action for release of the retirement benefits and accordingly, the payment of DCRG was ordered on 17.10.2008 after getting authorization from the General Manager, Postal Accounts and Finance, Chennai. The applicant represented to the respondents for payment of interest at the rate of 12% p.a., for the delay in payment of the retrial benefits, for which, the third respondent has replied on 26.4.2010 that there is no delay in payment of retrial benefits and as such, the interest could not be allowed. As per the provisions of Rule 68 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the sanction of interest for delay in payment of gratuity requires the sanction of the Secretary, Department of Posts, New Delhi. The proposal for payment of gratuity is under process and payment will be sanctioned to the applicant immediately on receipt of the approval from the Secretary, Department of Posts, New Delhi. Since the respondents have taken action to process the payment of interest on delayed payment of Gratuity, as claimed by the applicant, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
6. The applicant has not filed rejoinder to the reply statement, which shows that the applicant has nothing to clarify on the reply statement.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for either side, perused the pleadings available on record including rule 68 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in respect of payment of interest on delayed payment of Gratuity.
8. The applicant is not denying the statement of the respondents that he had admitted the charges unconditionally in the departmental proceedings dated 22.8.2006. The IO submitted his report dated 30.9.2006 holding the charges against the applicant as proved. In the representation submitted by the applicant on 21.9.2006 on the Inquiry Officer’s report, he has admitted the charges. The departmental proceedings were initiated after retirement of the applicant from service on superannuation on 31.3.2006. All the documents were sent to the first respondent on 18.7.2007 for arranging issue of Presidential order under the provisions of Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Presidential order was communicated to the applicant vide Memo dated 21.8.2008. The applicant has not stated anywhere in the OA that he had admitted the charges and he is not denying the reply statement. He has remitted the amount of Rs.20,000/- to the department as stated at para 4 of the OA. The Hon’ble President has issued the order on 21.8.2008 and ordered to drop the proceedings initiated against the applicant under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:
“2. Whereas the charged official retired after on superannuation with effect from 31.3.2006 and the proceedings continued under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
3. and whereas the President being the Disciplinary Authority after considering the cases with reference to the provisions of Rule-9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is of the view that the charges framed against the Retired Charged Official can not be construed as ‘grave misconduct’ justifying continuation of the proceedings under Rule-9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
4. Now, therefore, the President has ordered to drop the proceedings under Rule-9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 against Shri. S. Subramanian, Retd. Mail Overseer, Avadi Sub Division.”
9. Since the respondents have dropped the proceedings, the applicant is entitled for the retirement benefits from the date of superannuation. There was a delay in payment of retirement benefits, he had submitted his representation dated 13.4.2010 and requested for payment of interest for the delayed payment of dues from the date of retirement upto the date of actual settlement of retirement benefits.
10. Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 contemplate payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity. Under Sub Rule 3 of Rule 68, the administrative Ministry or the Department shall issue the Presidential sanction for the payment of interest after the Secretary has sanctioned payment of interest. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 68 states that 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 or employees or its attracted and subordinate offices where the Secretary of the Ministry or Department is satisfied that the delay in payment of Gratuity shall cause on account of Administrative lapse, the Secretary or the Ministry or the Department shall sanction payment of interest.
11. In the present case, the applicant is also seeking interest on the delay in payment of retirement gratuity. Under Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, since there is a delay in payment of gratuity, we are of the view that the applicant is entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum compounded annually in view of the Government of India decision, GI Department of Pension and PW Om No.F-7/1/93-P and PW(F) dated 25.8.1994. It is relevant to extract the said OM as follows:
“(2) Interest for delayed payment of Retirement/Death Gratuity to be at the rate applicable to GPF deposits. – 1. It has been decided that where the payment of DCRG has been delayed beyond three months from the date of retirement, an interest at the rate applicable to GPF deposits (at present 12 per cent compounded annually) will be paid to retired/dependants of deceased Government servants.
2. The Administrative Ministries are requested to ensure that in all cases where interest has to be paid on Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity because of administrative delay, action should be taken against the officer responsible for the delay.
12. From the above, it is clear that the interest for delayed payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity should be at the rate applicable to GPF deposits.
13. On the admitted facts narrated above, the applicant is entitled for interest on the delay in payment of Gratuity on the reason that the charges leveled against him were dropped by invoking Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicant has established his case for grant of interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits from the date of superannuation till the date of actual realization.
14. In the reply statement the respondents have stated that the proposal for payment for Gratuity was under process and payment will be sanctioned to the applicant immediately on receipt of approval from the Secretary, Department of Posts, New Delhi and accordingly the applicant is entitled for interest on the delay in payment of Gratuity. It is further noted on perusal of the impugned order that the impugned order does not speak about the Government of India instructions on the subject, no reasons have been assigned and hence we are of the considered view that the impugned order is not a reasoned and speaking order and the same is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.
15. The respondents have not justified in settlement of retirement benefits to the applicant and the interest thereon immediately after superannuation on 31.3.2006 or even from the date of dropping the charges by the Hon’ble President. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to calculate the delay in payment of interest on the Gratuity as requested by the applicant in his representation dated 7.5.2001 and pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of superannuation till the date of actual realization within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. The OA is allowed to the extent as indicated, with no order as to costs.