SURAJ BHAN v. D/O POST

OA 3162/14 3 Sh.Suraj Bhan Vs. UOI & Ors

3.1 Shri R.P.Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, filed a copy of the order dated 12.1.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. ( C ) No.3776 of 2015 (Union of India & Ors Vs. Suraj Bhan).

4. On a perusal of the records, it is found that the applicant had earlier filed O.A.No.1821 of 2013, in which he had prayed for the following reliefs:

"(a) To declare that the applicant is entitled to the interest @Rs.18% per annum on delayed payment of his retiral benefits from 1.9.2009 to Jan./Feb.2012 and quash the impugned letter dated 4.3.2013 (Annexure A/1).

(b) To direct the respondents to pay the interest @Rs.18% per annum on delayed payment of retiral benefits to the applicant in a time bound manner as if the impugned order has not been issued.

( c) To pass any other and further order or orders as deemed fit & proper in facts & circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

(d) To award exemplary cost of these proceedings to the applicant, who is a senior citizen and has been compelled to seek redressal through this Hon'ble Tribunal."

5. It is, thus, clear that the issue involved in the present O.A. No.3162 of 2014 is identical to or substantially the same as the earlier one in O.A.No.1821 of 2013 filed by the applicant.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the materials available on record, and the rival contentions of the parties, had decided O.A.No.1821 of 2013, vide its order dated 18.2.2014, the operative portion of which reads thus:

Page 3 of 8

OA 3162/14 4 Sh.Suraj Bhan Vs. UOI & Ors

"8. In the light of the decision of this Tribunal in K.C.Uttreja's case (supra), which was based on the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other decisions of this Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court, I hold that the applicant is entitled to interest on commuted value of pension and leave encashment from the date of expiry of three months from the date the said dues became payable to him at the same rate as applicable to G.P.F. Accordingly, the impugned order (Annexure A-1) is quashed and the respondents are directed to determine the amount of interest on commuted value of pension and leave encashment and pay the same to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

9. In the result, the Original Application is allowed as above. No costs."

7. The grievance of the applicant in the present O.A. is that notwithstanding the Tribunal's specific direction contained in its order dated 18.2.2014, ibid, the respondents have failed to pay to him interest on the delayed payment of commuted value of pension. Resisting the applicant's claim, the respondents have contended that there is no provision in the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, for payment of interest on the commuted value of pension for the period of delay. The said contention of the respondents had earlier been considered and overruled by the Tribunal, while deciding OA No.1821 of 2013, vide its order dated 18.2.2014, after following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, and the Tribunal. Therefore, the respondents cannot now be allowed to reiterate the same contention in the present O.A. However, it is found that challenging the Tribunal's order dated 18.2.2014, ibid, the respondents had filed W. P. (C) No. 3776 of 2015 before the Hon'ble High

Page 4 of 8

OA 3162/14 5 Sh.Suraj Bhan Vs. UOI & Ors Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court, vide its judgment dated 12.1.2016, has dismissed the said Writ Petition and upheld the Tribunal's order dated 18.2.2014, ibid.

8. Thus, it is clear that the order dated 18.2.2014 passed by the Tribunal in OA No.1821 of 2013, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its judgment dated 12.1.2016 in W.P. (C) No. 3776 of 2015, operates as res judicata and bars trial of the same issue in the present O.A. filed by the applicant. However, considering the facts that though the Tribunal's order dated 18.2.2014, ibid, has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its judgment dated 12.1.2016, ibid, the respondents have not yet paid to the applicant interest on the commuted value of pension, and that no other legal proceeding has yet been initiated by the applicant to ensure full compliance of the Tribunal's order dated 18.2.2014, ibid, I would like to make the following observations in the matter.

9. It is the admitted position between the parties, as has been observed by the Tribunal in paragraph 5 of the order dated 18.2.2014, ibid, that by the order dated 29.9.2011 issued in the name of the President, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the applicant had been dropped, and the respondents had paid the gratuity, leave encashment, and commuted value of pension to the applicant in January and February 2012 without any interest thereon for the delay. The applicant's representation claiming interest on all the heads had been considered by the respondents, and while

Page 5 of 8

OA 3162/14 6 Sh.Suraj Bhan Vs. UOI & Ors allowing interest on the delayed payment of gratuity under Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, the respondents had rejected his claim for interest on delayed payment of commuted value of pension and leave encashment.

10. As per the order dated 18.2.2014 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 1821 of 2013, the respondents were liable to pay to the applicant interest, at the GPF rate, on the commuted value of pension, and leave encashment for the period from the date of expiry of three months from the date the said dues became payable to him. While complying with the above direction of the Tribunal, the respondents have paid to the applicant an amount of Rs.37, 550/- towards interest on leave encashment for the period of delay in making payment thereof. Now that W.P. ( C ) No.3776 of 2015, filed by the Union of India and others, against the Tribunal's order dated 18.2.2014,ibid, has been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its judgment dated 12.1.2016, ibid, the respondents are bound to comply with the direction of the Tribunal contained in its order dated 18.2.2014, ibid, with regard to payment of interest on the commuted value of pension, since no SLP/Civil Appeal against the Hon'ble High Court's judgment dated 12.1.2016, ibid, has been preferred by them before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In terms of the Tribunal's order dated 18.2.2014, ibid, the respondents are liable to pay interest, at the GPF rate, on the commuted value of pension for the period of delay from the date of expiry of period of three months from the date when the commuted value of pension became payable to him by the respondents. As per Rule 4 of the CCS

Page 6 of 8

OA 3162/14 7 Sh.Suraj Bhan Vs. UOI & Ors (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1982, no Government servant against whom departmental or judicial proceedings have been instituted before the date of his retirement shall be eligible to commute a fraction of his provisional pension during the pendency of such proceedings. As noted earlier, the departmental proceeding initiated against the applicant was dropped and/or concluded on 29.9.2011, whereafter the applicant's final pension was determined, and the applicant's application for commutation of pension was allowed by the respondents. It is, thus, clear that the commuted value of pension became payable to the applicant on 29.9.2011 or within a reasonable period thereafter. Admittedly, he had been paid the commuted value of pension on 10.2.2012, i.e., after four months and ten days from the date when the same became payable to him. As noted earlier, in terms of the Tribunal's order dated 18.2.2014, ibid, the respondents were liable to pay interest, at the GPF rate, on the commuted value of pension from the date of expiry of three months from the date when the same became payable to the applicant. Thus, if the period of three months is excluded from the aforesaid total period of four months and ten days, the applicant is entitled to interest, at the GPF rate, on the commuted value of pension for one month and ten days.

11. In the light of what has been discussed above, I make it clear that the respondents shall pay to the applicant interest, at the GPF rate, on the commuted value of pension for one month and ten days, as has

Page 7 of 8

OA 3162/14 8 Sh.Suraj Bhan Vs. UOI & Ors

been ordered by the Tribunal in its order dated order dated 18.2.2014 passed in OA No.1821 of 2013, within a period of three months from today, failing which the applicant, if so advised, may initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents.

12. With the above observations, the O.A. is rejected. No costs.

(RAJ VIR SHARMA)

JUDICIAL MEMBER

AN

Page 8 of 8