Full Judgment
1. Shri Kuldeep Singh, the applicant herein, was initially appointed as Depot Store Keeper-III with the Railways. He was promoted as DMS-II again as DMS-I. On 22.09.2004, the applicant joined Delhi Metro Railway Service on deputation basis for a period of 5 years on 13.03.2008. He submitted his application for technical resignation for permanent absorption in DMRC, New Delhi. His technical resignation was accepted w.e.f. 28.03.2008 by granting him the extension of deputation tenure w.e.f. 22.09.2007 to 27.03.2008. The applicant submitted the relevant papers on 14.05.2008 to release his retirement benefits within time. His lien was terminated on 12.01.2009 after which the applicant submitted one more representation dated 6.07.2009 to expedite the settlement of his retirement dues. On 10.06.2009, the second respondent gave a no claim certificate in favour of the applicant. Although the amount of leave encashment, GIS contribution were received by him on 27.06.2009, the applicant’s ground is that those payments have not been properly calculated and still certain amount is due to be paid to him. As the Gratuity, Provident Fund and Commuted Pension were not paid to him he submitted representations dated 30.09.2009 and 12.11.2009. It is the case of the applicant that without properly examining the facts and the grievances his Gratuity and Commuted values of Pension were withheld on the ground that a stock sheet worth of `25 lacs was pending against the applicant. He came to know that in this regard he had been given clearance as he got the information through Right to Information Act and the said Stock Sheet dated 23.09.1999 was not pending on account of the applicant. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the applicant has come to this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following reliefs:-
“8.1 That this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this "riginal application and quash the impugned order dated 17.05.2010 with all consequential benefits.
8.2That this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this Original Application and direct the respondents to release the withheld dues i.e. pension, family pension, commutation and gratuity alongwith 18% interest.
8.3That this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this Original Application and direct the respondents to recalculate the dues properly after considering Vth and VIth Pay Commission benefit in respect of leave encashment, GIS and P.F. without any delay alongwith 18% interest.
8.4That any other or further relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant.
8.5That the cost of the proceedings may also be awarded in favour of the applicant.”
2. Shri Manjeet Singh Reen, learned counsel for the applicant referring to the above background of the case would submit that the applicant had been given no claim certificate as far back as on 10.06.2009 but the respondents have sanctioned the payment of Gratuity and Commuted Value of Pension as late as on 13.09.2011, which the applicant came to know from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents but the applicant has not yet received the said cheque. Shri Reen, therefore, submits that the applicant has got subsisting claims viz: (i) the leave salary and CGEIS have not been properly calculated, which need to be recalculated and differential amount paid to him and (ii) the second claim is about the payment of interest on belated payment of gratuity and commuted value of pension. In this regard, he placed his reliance on the judgments of Shri A. S. Randhawa versus State of Punjab [SLJ 1999 (1) SC 81]; John Refus versus Union of India [1990 (3) SLR 554]; Ram Pyari Shukla versus Secretary, Social Welfare Board, Bhopal [1988 (6) SLR 206] and A. Sadasivan versus Director General of Police Kerala [1989 (5) SLR 445]. In view of the law laid in the above judgments, he submits that the applicant should be granted interest @18% per annum from the date the amount was due to the date the said amount has been paid.
3. Opposing the contentions raised by the applicant, the respondents have filed their counter reply on 15.09.2011 through Shri R. L. Dhawan, learned counsel for the respondents. It is contended that the applicant had been paid `166242 towards Gratuity and `424003 towards commuted value of pension, totaling `590245/- vide Cheque dated 13.09.2011. He referred to the copy of the Cheque at Annexure R/1 to substantiate that the said cheque has been issued to the applicant on 13.09.2011. Opposing the claim of the applicant for interest, he would submit that there was no delay on the part of the respondents to release the said amount. It is stated that there was a case against the applicant that a stock sheet worth of `25 lacs was pending against the applicant and the clearance for the same could be received by the competent authority only on 16.05.2011 and as such thereafter within the shortest possible period of four months the applicant was paid the commuted value of pension and gratuity. Therefore, on this score, the applicant is not entitled to get any interest on the amount of gratuity and commuted value of pension to him. He further submits that it is the applicant who submitted his claim only on 6.07.2009 after which the respondents checked and found that the stock value of `25 lacs was pending against him. Further he submits that though the technical resignation was accepted w.e.f. 28.03.2008 but the said order was issued only on 12.01.2009. With regard to the claims made by the applicant that his leave encashment and CGEIS payment have not been properly done, Shri Dhawan submits that in case the applicant submits a representation clearly indicating his claim and the payments made, differential amount that he has been claiming would be meticulously examined by the competent authority and admissible amount would be paid at the earliest. Shri Dhawan placed his reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others versus Dr. J. K. Goel (Civil Appeal No.5380 of 1995 decided on 8.05.1995.
4. Having heard the rival contentions with the help of the counsel for the parties, I perused the pleadings and the relied on judgments. Two issues are for my consideration viz. (i) whether the applicant is entitled to interest on the belated payment of gratuity and commuted value of pension, and (ii) whether the respondents have paid the leave encashment and CGEIS amount as entitled to the applicant?
5. The applicant has admittedly taken technical resignation and admissible retirement benefits should have been paid to him. For the delay on the part of applicant, no interest is admissible. But if the respondents have delayed the payment of gratuity and commuted value of pension, the applicant will be entitled to pension. The present case is akin to the case of a Government employee retiring from service but not getting his retiral benefits within stipulated time.
6. In this regard, I refer to a Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in A.K. Kapoor HSE-1 (Retd.) v State of Haryana and Others [1991 (6) SLR 583]. While dealing with entitlement to interest of an employee whose post-retiral dues had been withheld, the Division Bench held that writ only for interest is maintainable. The pertinent observations made by the Division Bench read, thus :
“21. The petitioners had a legal right to the payment of retiral benefits and there was a corresponding legal duty imposed upon the respondents to deal with the matter in accordance with the Rules and the binding decisions of the highest Court. The respondents have thrown the policy and the statutory Rules to the wind. The object of providing pensionary benefits was obviously to enable the large body of Government pensioners not only to keep their body and soul together by warding off he pangs of deprivation towards the fall of their life but also to enable them to maintain a reasonable standard of living for themselves and their dependent. On the other hand, however, the casual way and manner their cases have been dealt with, in our view amounts to insult to human dignity. For their rightful dues they have been running from pillar to post and if this system of lethargy is permitted to continue, we are sure that the system itself shall be reduced to mockery.”
7. The observations made above with regard to post-retiral dues would, in my view, equally apply to the admitted right of the applicant in the present case to get interest on the admissible gratuity and commuted value of pension paid belatedly. The decision of the Division Bench in A.K. Kapoor (supra) was affirmed by a Full Bench of the same High Court in A.S. Randhava v State of Punjab and Others [1997 (4) SLR 617]. The relevant observations made by the Full Bench read as follows :-
“10. The question that now arises for our consideration is whether a retiree can approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution to claim interest only on the delayed payment of pension and other retiral benefits. As observed earlier, there is a duty cast on the State to disburse pension and retiral benefits immediately when they become due and it is the non-performance of this statutory duty which gives rise to the retiree to claim compensation by way of interest. This right to claim interest partakes the nature and character of the retiral benefits and is indeed a concomitant of the right to claim pension and retiral benefits and cannot be separated therefrom. This being so, a claim for interest by a pensioner cannot be equated with a claim for money simpliciter or any interest thereon arising out of contractual obligations.”
8. It is an admitted fact that the technical resignation of the applicant was accepted vide order dated 28.03.2008 and his lien with Railways was terminated from the same date by the order dated 12.01.2009. During the hearing, it was stated that the applicant submitted all relevant papers to get gratuity and commuted value of pension only on 10.06.2009. It is noticed that there has been no charges departmental/criminal pending against him. The stock deficit aspect for which the applicant is not responsible has been the main reason to withhold the said amount. It is seen that the applicant has not been charge sheeted and even has not been issued show cause notice for the same. Though, the clearance has come as late as 16.05.2011, that cannot be the reason to withhold the gratuity and commuted value of pension. Reasons advanced by Shri Dhawan against the interest do not convince as I find that only after the applicant filed this OA on 01.02.2011 the respondents have acted to get the clearance which was received on 16.05.2011 and the cheque dated 13.09.2011 was issued to the applicant. Hence, I am of considered opinion that the concerned respondents are responsible for the delayed payment to the applicant. The question is from what date the interest would accrue? This is not a normal retirement on superannuation. The applicant has joined DMRC and as such he has taken technical resignation for which the admissible benefits have been sought. For this type of case normally three months time is adequate from the date of filing claims by the concerned officer. Admittedly, the applicant submitted the claims on 10.06.2009. thus, in my views the interest would be admissible for the period with effect from 10.09.2009 till 12.09.2011, as the date of cheque is 13.09.2011, on the amount of gratuity and commuted pension i.e. `590245.
9. Guided by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nalini Kant Sinha versus State of Bihar and Others [1993 Supp (4) SCC 748], Punjab State Electricity Board and Others versus Kuldip Singh [(2005) 13 SCC 372], Gammon India Limited versus Niranjan Das [(1984) 1 SCC 509], E. Parmasivan and Others versus Union of India and Others [(2003) 12 SCC 270], and Government of West Bengal versus Tarun K. Roy and Others [(2004) 1 SCC 347, I hold the view that the present applicant would be entitled to the interest on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. The question arises what rate of interest would be admissible? In the present context, 9% simple rate of interest per annum will be admissible. I, therefore, hold the view that the interest on gratuity and commuted value of pension (`590245), the applicant would be entitled to interest at the simple rate of 9% per annum, from 10.09.2009 to 12.09.2011 (the day before the actual date of payment).
10. Further, the applicant has raised the second issue that his leave salary encashment and the CGEIS has been erroneously calculated and he is entitled to get more than what he has been paid. This prayer has been accepted by the counsel for the respondents stating that if the applicant submits representation with the details, the same would be considered and admissible amount would be paid. I, therefore, direct the applicant to submit a detailed representation on his subsisting claims on this count to the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the first respondent thereafter within a period of nine weeks would get the matter examined and pass appropriate orders. In case the applicant is entitled to any amount on this count of leave encashment and CGEIS the same shall be made over to him within the same period of nine weeks from the date of receipt of representation from the applicant.
11. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I come to the considered conclusion that there has been considerable delay in releasing the commuted value of pension and gratuity to the applicant. He would, therefore, be entitled to the interest calculated at the simple rate of 9% per annum for the period from 10.09.2009 to 12.09.2011 on the total amount of `590245, and the interest shall be paid to the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
12. In terms of the above orders and direction, the Original Application having merits is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.