The High Court of Delhi dismissed the Union of India's writ petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order directing interest on commuted pension. The Court held that since there was a delay in payment due to dropped disciplinary proceedings, the employee was entitled to interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~03
Date of decision: 12th January, 2016
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ... Petitioner Through Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate.
versus
SURAJ BHAN ..... Respondent In person.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Union of India impugns order dated 18th February, 2014, passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (Tribunal, for short) in OA No.1821 of 2013, directing them to pay interest on the commuted value of pension at the same rate as applicable to the General Provident Fund. The order also directs payment of interest on leave encashment. However, counsel for the Union of India submits that this part of the direction is not under challenge and interest towards late payment of leave encashment stands paid.
W.P.(C) 3776/2015
Page 1 of 4
Bhan superannuated on 31st August, 2009 from the post of Assistant Post Master (LSG), Delhi Circle. On retirement, the respondent was paid provisional pension as he was facing disciplinary proceeding for major penalty, vide memo dated 2nd June, 2008. This had prompted the respondent to file OA No.539/2011 for there was delay in concluding the departmental proceedings. By order dated 13th May, 2011, the authorities were directed to consider the Enquiry Officer’s report, and that the competent authority would decide the disciplinary case within four months from the date of receipt of the order dated 13th May, 2011.
W.P.(C) 3776/2015
Page 2 of 4
has to be paid when there is delay in payment of pension dues, but submits that in the present case, computed pension was calculated only on 1st February, 2012 and not earlier and, therefore, no interest is payable.
W.P.(C) 3776/2015
Page 3 of 4
were ultimately dropped. In these circumstances, the respondentemployee was entitled to interest on retiral benefits and there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in making the said direction. It is also recorded that due to inflation, the real value of money had depreciated and payment of interest only ensured that no loss was caused to the retired employee. We perceive interest in such matters is not gratis or penal, but paid to recoup the loss incurred and suffered by the aging retiree, who stands deprived and denied of what should have been paid earlier.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
JANUARY 12, 2016 NA/VKR
W.P.(C) 3776/2015
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interest on commuted pension value is payable when disciplinary proceedings were pending but later dropped.
Whether the Tribunal was correct in directing payment of interest to compensate for delay in payment of pension dues.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Narender PalReferred¶20
Union of India
Suraj Bhan
Sanjiv Khanna
Najmi Waziri
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
