High Court Karnataka High Court

R S Prasad vs The Union Of India By Its Addl Secy … on 23 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
R S Prasad vs The Union Of India By Its Addl Secy … on 23 February, 2010
Author: V.Gopalagowda & B.S.Patil
3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARFIATAICA AT BANGALORE

DATE}? THIS "rm: 23r=1 DAY or' FEBRUARY 

PRESEKT

THE HOWBLE MR.JUS"l'ICE V.G0PA£a%...4(¥'§§:'~}\:Ifi§.A..A "  

AND 

THE I-IOH'B§.E MR;J§JsTic_E "n.s.P;:*r;i;: "  

mm' PETITION N0.4fiu6$V (3l2G(}4£«S'_}C;3L'l;iV:§
B EN:  _ _ %   

Sri.R.S.Pra.3a'€§,_  '  
Aged abo1_1i;_6 };j_3?*€a1°$;',»  A' 
S/oxaaesaryug   
R/0°Nr_;.25(},1 "13: 
Opp.P.'J.R.BhaV3i;,4 % » V " __

15% Mairifitiad,    
Saijapur Raga, _ A ._ " 

Ba:n.gaiQ:r€~560 Q34. ' EPETITIQNER

  SI'i.HR.S.PE1,I"&1Sé1d, party~in~perso3::}
1; T326 Uzjiasfibf India by its

Addiféiézlal Secretaty and
Bexreitrpment Commissionfir,

 AA /9 .";:'a'sma.i1 Scale Zndugtiy,
 .F1<:}.65/ I, G,S.'I'.Road,
Guiiady,

Chennai - 630 032.



1%.}

53. The Director,
Smaii Industries Service institute,
Rajajinagar Indusfiial Estate,
BangaIore--56O O44. ...RE'SPGNDENTS

(By Sr*i.T.M.\R-znkata Ready, CGSC)  1 f »

This Writ Petition is filed under Am*c1:%$ 53:  
of the Consizitution of India gMraying""to_:~..direct_ 1f_:1'1f:  
respondents £0 release the pe1:.siot1*:i1}1.aoc31fd§mcc:3~A'with T

petitioner applicafion dateci 22.,6.f2.'{}C¥2 N::’;,7,
computation of $115101: as per’, appiicafion dated

5.8.2002 in Form N01, and”as–..per Rule on *f;0mp.1_11;ati0n of’

40% pension, reduced pezasidfxjévlzicix s;vi1l”¥3e.=eii’c;:ctive from
1.2.2003 and etc, i

This Writ Petitidr1V:%A’c0i:1_i1ég:. girders, this day,
Patil., J}, made the f0HO’W’i11gt — *

Pe t;ii;_i{;I1e:’ ié:&i’p1oye€: of the 3rd respondent is

b€fQ1j”‘e” %?_his cfialienging {ha order passed by the

%c»:§::z¥a1%§'<i::;inis1:z~a;£i§ze Tribunal (Tribunal far 3110 ). He

the Tlibunal with a gievance that his

peIiSior-1513* other ierrninai benefits were not reieased

'A " < Vidaxpitevéonsiderable iapaa sf 'mime.

— HA2, Tha Tlibunal, has passtsd an aide? an

%%i’m.2oe4 holding that admittedly the tarmmal benefits

were met releaged within {hue and thera was izxorciinate

deiajg in aettiing the same, Having regard me {ha delay in

%,

3

settling the dues the Tribunal has passed an order
directing payment sf 6% interest from 1.2.2003 til}
18.12.2003 on the amount of DCRG, Fension the

csmmuted value of pension payabie to the . ‘1’2r;e

Tribunal has also observed that first

India shall conduct an i12~h0uss:’ e}1£jLfiry”._i11′ _Vt5′ i’1:i2d 7

out who was responsible far the-.<;:1'é1.ay '1:1.."_;;is'Is3;si:1g"'vthsL

payment of pension and the 13E:né"'j;t?*.

3. In this Writ._”E’eti1ii013, of the petitioner

is that he ail 27 years 8 months and 2
days of ss._r§}iséi:”:=_ I-_.7fLVi%5′;’i’s:’t~}:I31er:ts of the Union sf india.

He “}i;:-ggafl’ st3.b%I::’it:Vs 7d 7th’é pension papers on 22.622082 is. ?’

V:AI:1§;’I1′ ‘she date of retirement Vidfi his ajgpficatisn

daféd “—V§.8.”i?:GC}2, But, the autherities delayed the

K V’ ” ¥sf:;*:,t1smV§ént of the p*6I}SiOI’£3I’§’ henefiis and ether dues by

— untszzabie Qbjscticms stafmg thai: his gaast service

” tws Dspaztments namely the service in Railways and in

the Befsncs couid net be rscksnsd. E-iswsvsr, during the

p%d2§1<:}? sf the appiimfion before the Tribmciai, tbs

4

authorities came femrard with an order dated 18. .1Q~.2Q(}3

directmg release of the pensionary benefits. ‘Ifh_;e ‘

took note at’ the same and passed the

payment of interest at 6% of; :1′ ” :4

although the petitioner 13adVs:0§.1g11 1i”– 13%A2.e:§r¢s:. ‘V

4. The pa1ty–i:1~pers0:1′;L§§?%e_x§) Ve;eg§eefeei’f.bef0re ue
contends that he Hef pension
with efieet fiom..}..2.2{)f}3.’_t§a1t.,V-.Vrespondent has
recemmendeé; 18. 12.2003 only
to eseezpe. ” regarding delayed payment

putting ftfé1e:I3V;e._(;}::1V previeus employer. He centends

,__{he;§5?meAV’*i’1ji¥3:;1iélezxght to have issued a aireetier}. to the

‘a:iii3erivti:ee ‘:Q:’eonsider his application and to release the

pe:1§i0I1.ae’i__per the request made in the application. Efis

<._next eefztentien is that, the Tribunal was in errer in

e1'ée"i;7i:1g payment of interest en the perxsiexz from the date

retirement till 18.i2.20()3 only. In this regard he

submits that the intereet ought te have been made

payable frem the date czf I'€ti1'@II1€I13i te the aetua} date en

whieh the payment ef eeneien eeztemeneed. His eext

Q/.

5

grievance is that the mic: of interest awarded at 6% is :00
low. fie submits that having zegard to the umeasenable

and unjustfiable deiay of nearly 10 months in

pensionaujgz and other benefits, he was entitled f0f:Vw”ifi3£iefe3t”. 4_

at Ieast at 13% as sought for by ¢ 4′ _:. ‘ Q’

5. The cotmsei for the res;:1_onr_1e1).3£s’e3f;as”refi.i.ie(i’w:At;he

eententions urged by t§1e’ peutitio2r1e’1; *

fmdings recorded aI}.d__ the otd:er:_paese<i' Tribunal,

Sri 'I'.1\e§.VeI1kata Rede;%e;T1ean§;ee% Gev$;.St.a11ding

Caunsei ,§.,'V'.:;;ez1f§'£ei*Vfléafiidavit on 28.1.2010
eneiosijfig OR of documents enclosed

at A13nexufe~§6 is Athe" (:ommuniea1:i011 of the result of

. V. –e;1é;u}§:'3é"eee1":dueted"fiiirsuant to the directien iseued by the

Deputy Director of Small mdustfies

Serx;_iceV__~ E:1e.*£;itute addressed to the Director of Sinai]

"}n§uszt1*ies Service institute, Bazigalore. In the said regaort,

very ciearly staied that the reason fer delay in

-»-releaeizzg the pension emd ether terminal benefits ie the

petitiener herein were met justified and that there were me

preper reaeens to support the delay. It is also stated

%/__

6

thereizl that the other officers who had serveé in the
Defence and Railways eta, prior to their $6I’ViC(‘:–‘”,ifl the

Small irxclustfies Service Institute were

benefit of pest service in ciifiererxt Departnjgeritf}

situations.

6. Having heard the pe1jty~iii=§$e’rs0n _$f7i. e

learned CGSC fer the respo1″;d’e1;1;t’, we f1’1’id”_fi1e.t delay in
settling the 9ensi0naI*§’end:«te1%ini:1a} beflefits on the
part of the respen&ent:e’w:hefiiiiee”~ie justifable. The

reporigl De_p11ty Director dearly shews
that ‘anti ue’ cielafgéVee1:eed’: ee.11}d not be supported and that

ihexe were no” p_r6per’reasens for the deiay. This repert is

,theVL’reefi£fi1: tithe i:n–heuse enquiry’ dizected by the Tribunal

eilefdhiate delay in Settiing the pensienary

eiaiieee 21:5 pfititiflfliii’.

AA in the light of the repera and the facts and

‘ efigremesianees edveried te abeve, we are persuaded to

‘4 W1H1G1d that interest payable {:0 the petitioner en the

p€1’1Si0l’i8I’:’y’ and ether termieei dues which fefl due upon

iéifi reti:*eme;1′: shall be eiiieeet }8°X:; es eieieeed by him and

2.10%; 6% as awarded by the Tribunal. We

persuaded te accept: the contention “urged isyfiriee’

person that interest shall be paid fremef. _

retirement iii} the amount was aetxxailjgé iffll

the date the order releasir;gti§1e aineunt .§j}gSS_,:»fi(Zi L.

What is material is the date pay1ae1at; as the
request made by the”. had opted for
computation 0f_:pensiQ1’1″;jfiwaI’dS and that
the secona. eeeemxnended it to be
from do not wish te express
any evffiiriiexi’ However, we deem it

appropriate .. to ciirfeet, eempetent auizherity nan1e1y the

~._Aee<::§i'1c};»_.._re:fspe:1deet–««:0 examine this request anti} passe

__erciers"'i1:;"aeeer{ianee with law within a period of 4 weeks

thve€ia__;e: ef receipt ef a copy of this erder. In a1} ether

reepe'c%;e'1~t1:1e order passeé by the Tribueai stands afi'1ra3.ed.

a:.iet–made clear that aaieumi aiready paid will have 13:} he

fiver; due deduetiens after eaieuiating the interest payable

at };3% and the balance payable has in be released te the

petitiener.

#5/e