Dismissed

Union of India and Anr. v. Chander Kant Dubey

Delhi HC26 Jul 2017W.P.(C)/6336/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order awarding simple interest on delayed pension, leave encashment, and gratuity. The Court observed that delay in payment warrants compensation and rejected the argument that absence of CCS (Leave) Rules provisions bars interest on leave encashment.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the pending application was dismissed as infructuous; the Tribunal's order allowing interest was effectively upheld.

Union of India and Anr. Vs Chander Kant Dubey — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~36

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6336/2017

¶4

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Ms.Rashmi Malhotra & Mr.Himanshu Kaushik, Advocats.

¶5

versus

¶6

CHANDER KANT DUBEY ..... Respondent Through

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

O R D E R

% 26.07.2017

CM No.26246/2017

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

The application stands disposed of.

¶14

W.P.(C) 6336/2017 & CM No.26245/2017

¶15

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.08.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.1373/2014. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that the respondent-applicant is entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on delayed payment of pension as well as leave encashment as also on gratuity from the due date.

¶16

The respondent was compulsorily retired from service while he was facing charge-sheet. However, it appears, that he could not

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

receive his retiral dues including leave encashment on time after his retirement. Therefore, he approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the petitioners to pay simple interest for late payment of pension, leave encashment and gratuity @ 9% per month from the due date.

¶19

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no interest could be claimed, or be paid in respect of leave encashment amount. In this regard, reliance is also placed on office memorandum dated 01.05.2012 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioner’s Welfare. Specific reliance is placed on Para 2(vi) of the said office memorandum which reads as follows:-

¶20

“2(vi) In the matter of delayed payment of leave encashment, the Department of Personnel & Training in their note dated 2.8.1999 had clarified that there was no provision under CCS (Leave) Rules for payment of interest or for fixing responsibility. Moreover, encashment of leave is a benefit granted under Leave Rules and not a pensionary benefit.”

¶21

We are not impressed by this submission of the petitioner. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that there has been a delay in release of the pension, as well as the leave encashment to the respondent. Since there was a delay in release of the amount of leave encashment, the respondent was entitled to be compensated by way of payment of interest. Interest is made payable so as to compensate the

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

retired employee for the depreciating value of money. The Tribunal has taken note of several decisions in this regard.

¶24

So far as leave encashment is concerned, Para 2(vi) of the OM dated 01.05.2012 does not purport to restrict the right of the retired employee to claim interest, merely because there is no provision in the CCS (Leave) Rules for payment of interest or for fixing responsibility in respect of late release of leave encashment benefit. The employee who was entitled to receive leave encashment benefit within the prescribed period after his retirement cannot be left waiting for release of his benefits amount, without any consequences to the department concerned.

¶25

We find no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶26

The pending application is also dismissed as infructuous.

VIPIN SANGHI, J

REKHA PALLI, J

JULY 26, 2017 gm

Page 3 of 3

Union of India and Anr. v. Chander Kant Dubey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Anr. v. Chander Kant Dubey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Trilok Nath Mohan Vs the Registrar, the Office of the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and Ors.

Gyan Singh Rana Vs University of Delhi & Anr.

Mahender Singh Vs University of Delhi through Its Registrar

Mehar Singh Rathee Vs Union of India

Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs M/S Hindustan Vegetable Oil Co.

Mehra Jewel Palace Pvt. Ltd. Vs Lt Governor Delhi and Ors.

Technical Employees Association of Railways and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sandeep Jhajhria Vs Govt. of Nctd & Anr.

Gurdial Singh Saini Vs Secretary Department of Posts

Govt of NCT of Delhi Vs Deepak Kumar

Union of India & Ors. Vs Yad Ram Sharma

S.Harinder Pal Singh & Ors. Vs Aicte & Ors.

Shlok Bhardwaj Vs Union of India and Ors.