Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

SMT SHARDA v. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD

Central Administrative Tribunal

Feb 24, 2023

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Tribunal Opinion Summary: Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench — Original Application No. 290/00270/2020 (24 February 2023)

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant, Smt. Sharda (retired Office Superintendent, BSNL Hanumangarh Jn.), filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking, inter alia, interest on delayed payment of her General Provident Fund (GPF) amount. The applicant had been absorbed in BSNL w.e.f. 01.10.2000 and superannuated on 31.12.2019 (afternoon). Her GPF account (No. TC RJ 12548) with the Controller of Communication Accounts (CCA), Jaipur, showed a balance of Rs. 36,85,010 payable on 01.01.2020, but payment was made only in May 2020 (variously recorded as 05.05.2020 by respondents and 08.05.2020 by the applicant). The applicant sought interest (claimed Rs. 1,47,542) for the delayed period and other reliefs. The respondents (Union of India/DoT; CCA; BSNL and its Circle/Unit offices) contested maintainability and attributed delay to various causes including late submission of the file by the BSNL office, ledger non‑updation, and the COVID‑19 lockdown. The Tribunal heard the parties, considered statutory rules and an OM dated 16.01.2017, and delivered the order on 24 February 2023.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Original Application is maintainable for claiming interest on delayed payment of GPF subscriptions (i.e., whether a claim for interest alone can be entertained by the Tribunal).
Whether the applicant is entitled to interest on the GPF amount from the date it became payable (01.01.2020) until actual payment (May 2020), given the record of delay.
If interest is payable, what is the applicable rate and who among the respondents should bear the liability to pay the interest?

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

The applicant's GPF subscription had been stopped three months prior to retirement and the final payment should have been made on 01.01.2020; instead, payment was made in May 2020 after a delay of about four months without payment of any interest.
The delayed payment caused loss to the applicant; the GPF is her own hard‑earned money and she ought to have been paid interest for the delayed period.
Reliance was placed on the Ministry OM dated 16.01.2017 (3/3/2016‑P&PW (F)) which recognizes timely payment obligations under Rule 34 and Rule 11(4) of GPF Rules, and on Supreme Court authorities (Vijay L. Mehrotra and State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair) to support entitlement to interest for administrative delay.
The applicant claimed specific monetary figures: principal Rs. 36,85,010 and claimed interest Rs. 1,47,542 (total claimed Rs. 38,32,462), though the CCA paid Rs. 39,00,083 in total.

Respondents No. 1 & 2 (Union of India / CCA) — Arguments

Raised a preliminary objection that the OA claiming interest alone is not maintainable because the GPF amount had already been credited to the applicant's account prior to filing the OA.
Asserted that the delay in submission of final payment documents was attributable to the office of respondent No.5 (GMTD Sri Ganganagar, BSNL), which prepared the case only on 12.03.2020 and the case was received by CCA on 20.03.2020.
Pointed to a CCA letter (29/30.01.2017, Annex. R/1) stating that if final payment cases are not received before three months of retirement, delay is attributable to BSNL and any interest claimed would be borne by BSNL.
Contended that the nationwide COVID‑19 lockdown (from 20/23.03.2020) impacted settlement timelines and that the GPF was released on 05.05.2020.

Respondents No. 3 to 5 (BSNL and its offices) — Arguments

Argued that the applicant's GPF ledger was not updated until 12.03.2020 and they awaited ledger updation to confirm the correct balance, which delayed final payment action.
Stated that, on verbal instruction of CCA, the final payment case was sent to CCA awaiting updated ledger, and that CCA made the payment on their own.
Denied the applicant's claim for the specific interest amount, noting that CCA paid Rs. 39,00,083 in total to the applicant.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and others, (2000) AIR 3513	Principle that retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter; courts have awarded interest for unexplained delays in payment of retiral dues.	The applicant relied on this decision to support the claim for interest; the Tribunal noted the authority and its holding regarding payment of interest for delay and treated it as supportive of awarding interest where administrative delay caused loss.
State of Kerala & others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429	Principle that administrative delay in payment cannot be attributed to the employee and such delay may warrant payment of interest to the employee.	The applicant relied on this judgment; the Tribunal accepted the principle that administrative delay by authorities can entitle the employee to interest and applied that reasoning in favour of the applicant.
Union of India & Ors v. M/s Orient Enterprises & Anr, decided 04.03.1998	Legal principle referenced by respondents (specific applicability not detailed in summary) — respondent tried to invoke it against maintainability.	The Tribunal observed that this decision has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore rejected respondents' reliance on it for denial of relief.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal proceeded by examining the documentary record and hearing submissions. Key steps in its analysis were:

Maintainability: The Tribunal first addressed the respondents' contention that the OA claiming interest alone is not maintainable. It observed that GPF subscriptions are the employee's own hard‑earned savings held by a regulatory authority and that interest on such deposits is governed by the relevant GPF rules and the authority's policy. On that basis, the Tribunal held the OA to be maintainable for claiming interest on GPF deposits.
Factual causation of delay: The Tribunal reviewed the timeline. The applicant's subscriptions had ceased three months prior to retirement, and the GPF should have been settled on 01.01.2020 or within January 2020. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in respondents' replies and concluded that the delay in final settlement was due to administrative laxity on the part of either CCA or BSNL (or both). The Tribunal found that the final payment was released only after the applicant agitated the matter.
Rules and administrative instructions: The Tribunal referred to Rule 34 of the General Provident Fund (Central Service) Rules and Rule 11(4) (as quoted in the Ministry OM dated 16.01.2017). The OM confirmed that the Accounts Officer must make payment when the amount becomes payable, that authority should be issued at least a month before superannuation, that an application is not required, and that interest for delay beyond retirement is contemplated under Rule 11(4) with specified administrative approvals for periods beyond six months/one year. The Tribunal considered this OM and the statutory rules as supporting the duty to ensure timely GPF payment and to address payment of interest where delays occur.
Precedents: The Tribunal noted Supreme Court decisions cited by the applicant (Vijay L. Mehrotra; M. Padmanabhan Nair) establishing that administrative delay may justify payment of interest. The Tribunal found these authorities supportive of the applicant's entitlement to interest.
Relief formulation and scope: While the Tribunal found the applicant entitled to interest, it declined to adjudicate between respondents as to which specific respondent should ultimately bear the liability. The Tribunal emphasized that its remit was to decide whether the applicant was entitled to the claimed relief, not to apportion financial liability between the administrative entities; it left that issue to the competent authorities of BSNL and CCA to sort out.
Rate and mechanics: The Tribunal directed payment of interest from 01.01.2020 to the date of actual payment at the applicable rate(s) of GPF for the relevant period (i.e., as per the GPF interest rates operative during that period), and directed that respondents issue a GPF statement showing the calculations.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Original Application is allowed. The Tribunal directed the respondents to grant the applicant interest on the GPF amount from 01.01.2020 up to the date of actual payment, calculated at the applicable GPF interest rate(s) for the period in question, and to make payment within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the order. The respondents were also directed to issue a GPF statement showing the calculation.

Immediate Consequences for the Parties

Respondents are to pay interest (as per applicable GPF rates) for the period 01.01.2020 to date of actual payment within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order.
The respondents must provide the applicant with a GPF statement detailing the calculations of interest.
The Tribunal declined to award any costs to the applicant.
The Tribunal did not decide which respondent (CCA or BSNL) is ultimately liable to bear the interest payment; that determination is left to the competent authorities of BSNL and CCA to resolve between themselves.

No broader precedent was declared by this opinion beyond application of existing GPF rules, the Ministry OM (16.01.2017), and cited Supreme Court principles regarding administrative delay; the order applied those authorities to the facts and directed remedial payment without creating a new legal principle.

Show all summary ...

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

Original Application No. 290/00270/2020 Reserved on : 09.02.2023

Jodhpur, this the 24^thFebruary, 2023

CORAM

Hon'ble Mrs. Jasmine Ahmed, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member Smt Sharda W/o Sh. Hawa Singh, aged 60 years, Retired office Superintendent BSNL Hanumangarh Jn resident of House No. RCST-8 Canal Colony, Hanumangarh Jn. (Raj). ...................Applicant

By Advocate : Mr Om Prakash Sharma.

Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary, Deptt of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110001.

2. The Controller of the Communication Accounts, Deptt of Telecom, Govt. of India, Old CTtC Building, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur-302004.

3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. through Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001.

4. Chief General Manager, Rajasthan Telecom Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur-302008.

5. The General Manager Telecom Distt, BSNL, Shyam Nagar, Sriganganagar (Raj) 305001.

........Respondents

By Advocate : Mr B.L. Tiwari (Respondents No. 1 & 2). Mr Kamal Dave (Respondents No. 3 to 5).

ORDER

Per Mrs. Jasmine Ahmed The instant Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs :

A. That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow this petition. B. That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to issue an order or a direction to the respondents to grant interest @12% p.a. for the withholding amount of GPF till 7/5/2020.

C. Allow the costs of the case in favour of the applicant. D. Issue any other order/direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

2. Narrating facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant was initially appointed under the Department of Telecom, Govt of India and later on, absorbed in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) w.e.f. 01.10.2000 as per Presidential Order dated 28.01.2002 (Annex. A/3). In pursuance of the said Presidential Order, the

Controller of Communication Accounts (CCA) continued to maintain her GPF Account in accordance with sub rule 24 (C) Rule 37 (A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicant honourably superannuated from the BSNL w.e.f. 31.12.2019 (AN) after attaining the age of superannuation.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant had a sum of Rs 36,85,010 at his credit in her GPF Account No. TC RJ 12548 maintained by the CCA DoT Jaipur, payable to her on 1^stJanuary, 2020 but the same was paid to her on 08.05.2020 after a delay of 04 months and 07 days without any interest for the said period, hence, the instant OA.

4. On the other hand, Mr B.L. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1&2 (DoT) states that admittedly, the GPF amount has already been credited to the account of the applicant on 07.05.2020, i.e. prior to filing of the instant OA, hence, the instant OA is not maintainable for the claim of interest alone. Averring the facts, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 alleges that the office of respondent No. 5, i.e. GMTD Sri Ganganagar was working as "Post

Office". The said office prepared the case of the applicant on 12.03.2020 and the same received in the office of CCA on 20.03.2020. In CCA letter dated 29/30.01.2017 (Annex. R/1), it has clearly been mentioned that if final payment cases not received before 03 months of retirement date, the responsibility for delay submission of such cases will be on the part of the BSNL and interest, if any, in such a situation is claimed by the subscriber later on, the same will be borne by the BSNL. He further states that the case of the applicant received on 20.03.2020 (Friday) by the CCA followed by a nationwide lockdown from 20.03.2020 to 14.04.2020 due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, hence, the case of the applicant could be settled on 05.05.2020 within stipulated time as per GPF Rules.

5. Mr Kamal Dave, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 5 states that the GPF ledger of the applicant was not updated till 12.03.2020 and respondents No. 3 to 5 awaited the ledger updation to confirm the correct balance and payment of GPF to be made to the applicant. The applicant, in the meantime, raised her grievance to the BSNL, as well as CCA

regarding non-payment of GPF. Since the GPF is essentially within the domain of CCA, therefore, on the verbal instructions of the CCA, the GPF final payment case of the applicant was sent to them awaiting updated ledger, and finally, the CCA made payment on their own. He further states that the applicant raised a claim for Rs 36,85,010 plus Rs 1,47,542 as interest which amounts to Rs 38,32,462/-, whereas, the applicant was paid a total sum of Rs 39,00,083 by the CCA. As such, the respondents No. 3 to 5 denied the claim of the applicant.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on records.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant, inter-alia, states that GPF subscription of the applicant has been stopped three months prior to her retirement and as per rules and guidelines, the GPF amount and interest at the credit of the applicant should have been paid to her on 1^stJanuary, 2020. The respondents released her legitimate final payment of GPF on 08.05.2020 and that too, without crediting any interest from 01.01.2020 to the date of payment as per letter dated

25.08.2020 (Annex. A/1). While referring to Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare OM No 3/3/2016-P&PW (F) dated 16th January 2017, learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant had at his credit almost 38 Lacs rupees in her GPF account which should have been paid to her on 01.01.2020 as she superannuated on 31.12.2019 (AN), but the respondents paid her legitimate GPF dues on 08.05.2020 without awarding any interest on this huge amount from 01.01.2020 to the date of releasing the payments is illegal and arbitrary and caused loss to the applicant. In support his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of UP and others, reported in (2000) AIR 3513 (1), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"3. In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for more unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement.

4. In this case, there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making the payments for months together. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the appellant within 12 weeks

from today simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from the date of her retirement, i.e. 31^stAugust, 1997 till the date of payments."

He further states that it is the applicant's own hard earned money and administrative delay on the part of the respondents No. 1 & 2 which caused loss to her and the same was paid to the applicant when she agitated her grievance, hence, the applicant is entitled for the interest as claimed in the present Original Application. In this regard, he has also relied the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala and others vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985 1 SCC 429), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that reasons for the delay is administrative and cannot be attributed to the applicant and therefore, the applicant therein is entitled to interest.

8. Mr B.L. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 (CCA), took a preliminary objection that the instant Original Application for claiming the interest alone is not maintainable. While arguing merits of the case, he alleged that since Head of Office of BSNL Unit has not submitted

the required details, the final payments of the GPF to the applicant could not be disbursed in time. He further states that there is also a nationwide lockdown from 23.03.2020 to 14.04.2020, which delayed the payment of GPF to the applicant. However, the respondents No. 1 & 2 released the GPF of the applicant on 05.05.2020.

9. Mr Kamal Dave, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 5 (BSNL), inter-alia, argued that the applicant has categorically stated that the relief for interest against the delayed payment of GPS is of the Department of Telecom, i.e. respondents No. 1 & 2. He also contended that the GPF ledger was not updated till 12.03.2020 and the respondents No. 3 to 5 awaited for ledger updation to confirm the correct balance which attributed to the delay.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. From perusal of record, it is evident that there is nothing to demonstrate, on record, that there is anything which could attribute the delay in final payment of the GPF on the part of the applicant, which ought to have been paid to her on 01.01.2020. The

plain reading of separate replies filed by the CCA & BSNL makes it clear that the delay in final settlement of GPF to the applicant is on account of administrative laxity, be it CCA or BSNL. It is also evident from the record that even her final GPF payment on 05.05.2020 (as per respondents No. 1 & 2)/08.05.2020 (as per averments of the applicant) were released to the applicant when she agitated the matter before both the authorities.

11. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents No. 1 & 2 that the instant OA is not maintainable for claiming interest alone. The GPF subscription is deposited by an employee from his/her salary with the competent authority. The regulatory authority maintaining the Fund awards interest on the same as per their policy. Hence, the nature of Provident Fund is quite different from other retiral benefits released by the authorities as GPF subscription is an employees' own hard earned money deposited with a regulatory authority mandated under such law/rules to do so. Hence, in our considered view, the instant OA is maintainable for claiming interest on her deposits

towards GPF subscriptions by the applicant and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs M/S Orient Enterprises & Anr decided on 04.03.1998 has no applicability in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

12. During course of arguments, a contention has been raised by the respondents that there is no provision to allow interest on GPF at the credit of an employee after his retirement. Rebutting such contention, the learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare OM No 3/3/2016-P&PW (F) dated 16th January 2017, which reads as under :

"Subject: Clarification regarding timely payment of GPF final payment to the retiring Government servant - regarding During review meetings held to evaluate the status of implementation of Bhavishya with Ministries/Departments, it was observed that GPF final payment in many cases is not being paid to the retiring Government servants immediately on retirement from service leading to payment of interest for the delayed period.

2. Rule 34 of General Provident Fund (Central Service) Rules clearly provides that when the amount standing at the

credit of a subscriber in the General Provident Fund becomes payable, it shall be the duty of the Accounts Officer to make payment. The authority for the amount payable is to be issued at least a month before the date of superannuation, but payable on the date of superannuation. It may be noted that the requirement of submitting a written application by the retiring Govt. servant for GPF final payment has been dispensed with vide this Department's Notification No. 20(12)/94-P&PW (E) dated 15.11.1996 and notified under S.O NO.3228 dated 23.11.1996.

3. As per Rule 11(4) of GPF Rules, in case the GPF balance is not paid on retirement, interest on the GPF balance is required to be paid for the period beyond the date of retirement also. While interest for the first six months beyond retirement can be allowed by the PAO in the normal course, approval of Head of the accounts office is required for payment of interest beyond six months and that of Controller of Account/Financial Adviser beyond a period of one year

4. To ensure timely final payment of GPF, and to avoid unnecessary financial burden on account of interest beyond retirement, it has now been decided that every case, in which payment of interest on General Provident Fund becomes necessary in terms of Rules 11(4) of GPF Rules, 1960, shall be put up for consideration to the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry/Department. In all such cases the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry/Department will fix responsibility at all levels to take appropriate action against the Government servant or servants who are found responsible for the delay in the payment of General Provident Fund.

5. This issues with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, vide their 10 NO.187/EV/2016 dated 27th September 2016."

13. We have considered the rival contentions raised by the parties. Since the respondents have stopped deduction from the salary of the applicant towards GPF three months prior to the date of retirement and ideally, in such a scenario, the final settlement of GPF in respect of the applicant should have been done on 01.01.2020 or within the month of January, 2020. However, the respondents did not do so till the applicant agitated his grievance before them and on receipt of such representation, they settled the GPF of the applicant on 05.05.2020 which ought to have been done on the very next day of date of superannuation. The applicant had her entire service career savings aggregating to more than Rs. 35 Lacs. The administrative laxity on the part of the respondents caused a loss to the applicant in the form of interest which she otherwise would have earned for five months or used her own money as per her priority. The plea taken by the respondents that there is no provision of awarding interest

after the date of superannuation cannot be accepted by us as it is the applicant's own fund and had it been disbursed to the applicant, he would have, in any, case enjoyed the interest of the same or utilized it. Rather, the respondents' authority during all this period enjoyed the interest free money of the applicant hiding behind the plea that there is no provision to award interest after date of superannuation. Had it been a delay of one month, this Tribunal would not have considered this aspect of the matter, but in the present case, the respondents failed to follow their own rules/guidelines on the subject and rather harping on the issue that there is no provision. It will be unjustified and illegal to reject the claim of the applicant on this ground. The OM dated 16.01.2017 referred by learned counsel for the applicant does not deprive the respondents to pay the interest beyond the date of superannuation of the applicant. Hence, the applicant is entitled for interest on the GPF at her credit from 01.01.2020 to the date of actual payment as per GPF rates of interest applicable for the said period.

14. Furthermore, the respondents tried to shirk their responsibility for delay in GPF settlement of the applicant on each other which is evident from the replies filed by them. The respondents, in a clandestine way, seems to seek direction from this Tribunal in regard to the issue that who will pay the interest on delayed payment of GPF in case this Tribunal direct so and responsibility is fixed by the competent authority. In our considered view, it is the applicant who is before us seeking the relief in the OA and it is not for this Tribunal to decide that who will pay from whose pocket?

This Tribunal only ceased with the issue that whether applicant is entitled for the claim for which he invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Be as it may, we are not inclined to adjudicate or record our findings in this regard and it is for the competent authority of the BSNL and CCA to decide between them.

15. In view of discussions hereinabove made, OA is allowed with the directions to the respondents to grant the applicant interest, w.e.f. 01.01.2020 to the date of actual payment, on the GPF amount at the credit of the applicant as per

applicable rate(s) of GPF for the period in question, within 02 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondents shall also issue GPF statement to the applicant with regard to the calculations of the same.

16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to allow any costs in favour of the applicant. OA is thus allowed with aforesaid directions.

[Dr. Nandita Chatterjee] [Jasmine Ahmed]

Administrative Member Judicial Member