SATCHIDANANDA JENA v. FOREST CONSERVATION

pension paper of the applicant was received by F&E Department on 10.03.2016 and the same was returned to PCCF, Odisha with a request to furnish the same along with necessary documentation vide letter dated 08.06.2016. The Additional PCCF (P&A) furnished the final NDC revised LPC along with SB of the applicant vide letter dated 29.08.2018. Thereafter the pension paper etc were forwarded to PAG, (A&E), Odisha on 31.08.2018 which was also duly intimated to the petitioner.

3. In course of hearing learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the delay in disbursement of the pension and pensionary dues was occasioned due to the callousness and recalcitrant attitude of the Respondents and, therefore, as per the Rules and law, the applicant is entitled to interest. Per contra learned counsel for the Respondents have submitted that the delay was not intentional or deliberate but for the reason of complying with the official procedures for sanction of pension. It has also been submitted that there is no such provision for payment of interest for delayed payment of pensionary benefits. Accordingly, Respondents have prayed for dismissal of this OA.

4. The law on grant of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits is no longer res integra. Time and again this question has cropped up before various Courts and it has been held that when the employer delays the release of Pensionary benefits, it is bound to pay interest on account of

3

the delay. In State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985)

1 SCC 429), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on the retirement but are valuable rights in their hands, and any culpable delay in disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest. In said case the Court approved 6% per annum interest on the amount of pension decreed by the trial court and affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another [(1999) 3 SCC 438], held that, when there is delay in disbursement of pensionary benefits, the department is liable to pay interest thereof. In Para Nos.5 to 7 of the said case, it was held as follows:-

"5. If rules/instructions which prescribe time schedule for settling of retirement dues, are followed strictly, much of litigation can be avoided and retired government servants would not feel harassed. Pension is not a bounty but right of a government servant. Government is obliged to follow rules. Delay in settling retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too, there is a prescribed procedure. This indeed is unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the Court can certainly keep in mind time schedule prescribed in the rules/instructions, apart from other relevant factors applicable to a case.

6. The present case is a clear example of inexcusable department delay. Respondents contend that letters were sent to the petitioner after her retirement seeking some information for settling her

4

retirement dues but this is denied by the petitioner. Even if it is assumed that such letters were sent, this cannot be an excuse for lethargy of the department because rules/instructions provide for initiation of process much before retirement. The exercise which was to be completed much before retirement was in fact started long after petitioner's retirement.

7. This is a fit case for awarding interest to the petitioner. It is however not necessary that the matter should go back to the Government for computation of interest. Instead, on the facts of this case, interest is quantified at Rs.1 lakh. The same shall be paid to the petitioner within two months."

In the case of S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana CIVIL APPEAL NO.184 OF 2008, the appellant therein was served with three charge sheets/show cause notices in June 1998, few days before his retirement. However, he retired on 30.06.1998 on reaching the age of superannuation. He was paid provisional pension, but other retiral benefits were not given to him, which included commuted value of pension, leave encashment, gratuity, etc. They were withheld till the finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. While answering the issue as to whether the appellant therein was entitled to interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, in the absence of any statutory rules/administrative instructions or guidelines, the Supreme Court held as follows:

"In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If

5

there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in the absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents."

Similarly, in the case of D.D. Tewari vs. Uttar Haryana Bulivitran Nigam Limited and others, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7113 OF 2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

"…...denial of interest from the date of entitlement till the date of actual disbursement would take away the valuable rights of the retired government servant. It was reiterated in that decision that pension and gratuity are not bounty to be distributed by Government to its employees on their retirement, but are valuable rights and property in its hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof is to be visited with penalty of payment of interest."

5. It is worth mentioning that Rule 58 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 deals with preparation of pension papers inter alia provides as under:

"58. Preparation of pension papers Every Head of Office shall undertake the work of preparation of pension papers in Form 7 ^[one year] before the date on which a Government

6

servant is due to retire on superannuation, or on the date on which he proceeds on leave preparatory to retirement, whichever is earlier. ^ Substituted vide GSR 628(E), dated 1st September, 2014, Government of India, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare Notification No.1/19/2013-P&PW(E), dated 29th August, 2014"

6. Further the time schedule for the steps to be taken relating to timely release of retirement dues as provided in Rule is as under:

Pension Process Map and Time Frame

for those who are retiring on superannuation

S.No Process Authority Timeframe Applicable

Concerned Rule

CCS

Pension Rules

1 Preparation of list of employees Head of the 1^stJanuary,1^stApril 56(1) who are due to retire within 12 to Department ,1^stJuly and 1^stOctober 15 months each year.

2 Communication of the list to the Head of the 31^stJanuary, 30^thApril, 56(2) Accounts Officer Concerned Department Head 31^stJuly and 31^stOctober of the Office each year.

In case of Government

servants retiring for reasons

other than immediately as

soon as the fact comes to

notice.

In the case of a Government 56(3)

servant retiring for reasons

other than by way of

superannuation, the Head of

Office shall promptly inform

the Accounts Officer

concerned, as soon as the

fact of such retirement

becomes known to him.

3 Communication of the list to the Head of the 12 months before retirement. 56(4) Directorate of Estates in respect Office.

of employees having General Pool

Accommodation with a view to

obtain 'No Demand Certificate.

4 Verification and determination of Head of the 12 months before the 59 qualifying service, and if Office. retirement. The process to (a) & (b) necessary, in consultation with the complete before eight employee; and determination of months from the

average emoluments. retirement.

7

7. The applicant being a IFS Officer is covered by AIS/CCS Pension Rules provided above. From the pleadings and arguments it is clear that the present case is a clear example of inexcusable departmental delay in payment of pension and pensionary dues to the Applicant. Admittedly the Government in Forest and Environment Department had sanctioned entire period of Foreign Service in OFDC Ltd from 05.12.2013 to 31.08.2015 vide letter dated 07.07.2014. The applicant had retired on 31.08.2015 after attaining the age of superannuation and he had submitted his pension papers two months before retirement. He had also been sanctioned provisional pension by the respondents. The applicant has also been raising the issue of

8

non payment of pensionary dues right from 03.09.2015 as seen from Annexure A/1 series. The final pension paper of the applicant was received by Forest & Environment Department on 10.03.2016 and it was returned to PCCF, Odisha on 08.06.2016 for furnishing of some documents. The PCCF furnished the said documents on 29.08.2018 i.e. two years after Forest & Environment Department had sought those documents vide their letter dated 08.06.2016 and almost three years after retirement of the applicant. It is clear from the above timelines that the applicant was in no way responsible for the delay. It is a clear cut case of administrative lethargy for such inordinate delay in processing the case of the applicant. I have also gone through the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Nilamani Mishra vs Union of India and others, 2022 (Supp) OLR 500, relied on by the learned counsel for the Applicant wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, after considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject was pleased to direct release of retirement dues with interest. Hence taking into consideration the facts and law discussed above, Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to pay interest on delayed payment of pension @ 9% from the date the pension became due till the same is paid to the Applicant, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9

8. In the result this OA stands allowed to the extent stated above. No costs.

(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS)

MEMBER (A)

(csk)

10