ORDER
G. Shanthappa, Member (J)
1. Heard Shri A.R. Holla, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri K.N. Chandrashekar, S.C.G.S.C for the respondents.
2. The above application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1989 seeking the following reliefs:
(i)The inaction of the respondents to make payment of the retirement benefits of the applicant is unreasonable having regard to the fact that his pension papers were forwarded to the Directorate of Health Services as early as 13.3.2006. There is absolutely no valid reason for the delay in making payment of the retirement benefits to the applicant. Hence, the respondents are liable to be directed to make payment of the same to the applicant with interest at 12% p.a from 30.4.2006 to the date of actual payment.
(ii)The only irregularity noticed by the authorities concerned in the pay fixation of the applicant during the earlier period as per Annexure-A1 has been satisfactorily explained by the applicant vide his reply dated 13.3.2006, Annexure-A2. As there has been no further response from the respondents in the matter, they appear to have satisfied with the reply. In these circumstances, the delay in finalising the pension benefits and making payment of the same to the applicant is not at all justified.
(iii)In any event, there can be no difficulty in making payment of provisional pension in case the actual pension calculation needed further time. There can be no impediment for making payment of the leave encashment benefit, provident fund amount etc. The inaction of the respondents, unmindful of the hardship experienced by the applicant, to settle his retiral benefits unreasonable and unjustified
(iv)The respondents liable to pay interest on the retiral benefits due to the applicant at the rate of 12% p.a. From 30.4.2006, the date of his retirement till the actual date of payment. The respondents have failed to reply to the representation of the applicant for the retiral benefits.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Additional Director of CGHS had submitted his application of voluntary retirement on 30.1.2006. He was permitted to retire with effect from 30.4.2006. The applicant had submitted his representation well in advance for pension and other retiral benefits. Since the respondents did not settle the pension as per the representation dated 30.6.2006 (Annexure-A7), the applicant has approached this Tribunal for a direction as prayed for in the O.A.
4. The counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have settled the entire claim and there was a delay in the payment of pension and other retiral benefits; the amount was paid without any interest. Hence, the applicant has claimed for interest on the delayed payment which was due to inaction on the part of the respondents.
5. Per contra, the respondents have filed a detailed reply statement. They have admitted that the entire amount has been paid to the applicant as claimed by him. The delay in payment of pension and other retiral benefits, was held up on account of unforeseen circumstances as with regard to the effective date of retirement. The applicant retired on 30.4.2006. He had submitted his pension papers showing his date of retirement as 1.5.2006 and the same were transmitted to the Pay and Accounts Office, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Kolkata along with his Service Book for finalisation of his pension and other retiral benefits. There was a discrepancy with regard to the effective date of voluntary retirement of the applicant and in terms of Rule 5(2) of CCS Pension Rules, 1972, the date of retirement has to be treated as a non working day and as such the same required a correction either in the order of the Govt. of India letter dated 26.4.2006 with regard to the effective date of voluntary retirement of the applicant or in the pension papers submitted by the applicant. The applicant had worked till 28.4.2006 and 29th and 30th April, 2006 were Saturday and Sunday i.e., non working days, it was considered by the office of the respondents to refer the matter to the Government of India for making necessary correction and change in the date of retirement of the applicant by shifting either to 1.5.2006 or 28.4.2006 or any other date including 29.4.2006. When there was no response from the Ministry, two more reminders dated 21.11.2006 and 29.11.2006were issued. Final decision was taken on 4.1.2007 by issuing necessary corrigendum modifying the earlier Ministry’s order dated 26.4.2006 shifting the date of voluntary retirement of the applicant from 30.4.2006 to 1.5.2006 (FN).
6. The respondents have sanctioned a total admissible amount of Rs. 94,088/- under the head of Group Insurance, CGEGIS scheme on 9.11.2006 and cash payment in lieu of earned leave on 19.9.2006 for a sum of Rs. 4,76,050/-. The pay and Accounts Office, Calcutta had returned the bill with an objection that the sanction order for encashment of unutilised earned leave is required to be issued by the authority competent to grant leave to the applicant as would be borne out from bill return memo sent by Pay & Accounts Office on 14.11.2006. The matter had been referred to the Director, CGHS, New Delhi and in turn an approval for payment of leave salary for 300 earned leave days and also the related documents including the bill countersigned by the Director, CGHS. The issue of payment of leave encashment also stands resolved.
7. As regards the claim of GPF amount which was paid on 19.7.2006 without any interest, it is stated that the application for GPF final payment was received on 16.5.2006 and the same was processed and the authority for the same was issued in the month of May 2006 by allowing interest upto the last completed day of April, 2006.
8. In respect of revision of pay of the applicant in terms of the recommendation of the IV Central Pay Commission, the applicant’s pay was required to be fixed at Rs. 3300/- instead of Rs. 3400/- under Rule 22 (1)(a)(2) on his promotion as Chief Medical Officer (NFSG) with effect from 1.3.1995. It was detected by the competent authority in CGHS that the applicant had drawn excess salary to the tune of Rs. 1,04,663/- on account of wrong pay fixation pursuant to be recommendation of the IV CPC and as such recovery of the said amount on account of wrong pay fixation for the period 1.1.1986 to 30.4.2006 was proposed. Recovery of excess payment made to the applicant in respect of an amount which he was not entitled to draw is permissible as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Gangaram v. Regional Joint Directorand Ors. Reported in and also in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Sujatha Vedachallamand Anr.
Reported in .
9. The respondents have filed an affidavit dated 24.6.2007 for delay and reasons for granting pension to the applicant. A chronological date of events is also enclosed as per Annexure R1.
10. The applicant has filed rejoinder admitting that he has received the entire claim as stated in his representation and he is claiming only the interest on delayed payment. In his rejoinder he has given the number of days of delay in payment of the retiral benefits as follows:
GPF : 74 days Group Insurance : 204 days E.L. Encashment : 314 days Gratuity : 323 days Pension : 395 days The applicant is asking for interest at the rate of 12% p.a for the delayed payment of the amount.
11. The counsel for the respondents, to show the delay occurred in payment of the claim of the applicant, has produced an affidavit as per Annexure-R1 in which the pension has been settled after lapse of many days. He also submitted that there was delay in settling the pension and other retiral benefits as claimed in the representation, the applicant is entitled for interest on the delayed payment.
12. I have carefully examined the contention taken from either sides. When the respondents have paid the entire amount as claimed by the applicant in his representation, the relief in the present O.A is restricted only to the delay in payment of pension and other retiral benefits. As on the date of filing of the O.A the representation was pending, subsequent to filing of the O.A the claim of the applicant has been settled. Since there was delay in settling the pension and other retiral benefits as admitted by the respondents in their affidavit dated 24.6.2007 and the chronological events mentioned in Annexure-R1, the respondents are liable to pay the interest for the delayed payment as taken by the applicant in his rejoinder. As the respondents did not take a decision in time, there was lapse on the respondents for that they have to pay interest on the delay payment as mentioned in the rejoinder. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to pay interest on delayed payment on each head as mentioned in para-10 above at the rate of 9% p.a.
13. Regarding wrong fixation of pay of the applicant, since that is a separate cause of action, the respondents can take a decision regarding wrong pay fixation or any other recovery in accordance with rules. The counsel for the applicant submitted that as and when the applicant receives an order for recovery of excess amount, the applicant will take appropriate steps.
14. As admitted by the respondents in their affidavit, there was a delay in settlement of pension and other retiral benefits as claimed by the applicant. As observed in paragraphs – 10, 11 and 12 of this order, I am of the considered view that the respondents are liable to pay interest on the delayed payment. With the above observation the O.A is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay interest on each head at the rate of 9% p.a on the delayed payment of pension and other retiral benefits. No costs.