This writ petition challenged a Tribunal order awarding interest on delayed retiral benefits. The High Court rejected the petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision given the delayed exoneration after malafide disciplinary proceedings.
Writ petition dismissed as there was no infirmity in the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
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.
$~56
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Central
Government Standing Counsel.
Versus
D.K. BOSE
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashim Shidla, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 35671/2019 & 35672/2019.
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No. 8630/2019 & CM No. 35670/2019
Page 1 of 5
W.P.(C.) No. 8630/2019
Page 2 of 5
W.P.(C.) No. 8630/2019
belatedly, so the petitioners cannot be burdened with interest for the period spent in the inquiry proceedings.
“3. The Central Government has also issued OM No. 38/64/98-P&PW(F) dated 05.10.1999 wherein it is provided for payment of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits.
4. In the conspectus, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled for receiving interest at reasonable rate. I also take into consideration that in the normal course, it would have taken a maximum period of three months to crystallize various retiral claims of the applicant. Hence, I hold that the applicant is entitled for receiving interest for any delay that has occurred beyond three months of his retirement.
5. Accordingly, I allow this OA in the following terms:-
Respondents are directed to pay interest @ 8% on the delayed release of various components of retiral benefits beyond a period of three months from the date of his retirement, i.e. w.e.f. 01.10.2012. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Page 3 of 5
W.P.(C.) No. 8630/2019
Page 4 of 5
W.P.(C.) No. 8630/2019
irresponsible conduct of the petitioners, the respondent's retiral benefits were released belatedly. Not only this, he had to undergo all the rigors of the enquiry which ultimately cluminated into his exoneration. The respondent had to approach the Tribunal and High Court seeking finalization of his case which resulted not only in wastage of his time and money, rather it had caused undue harassment to a retired person. 13. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 09.05.2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
AUGUST 8, 2019 Sumant
Page 5 of 5
W.P.(C.) No. 8630/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interest can be claimed on belatedly paid retiral benefits when disciplinary proceedings initiated just before retirement were mala fide and resulted in exoneration causing significant delay.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal committed an error in ordering interest on delayed pension payments under these specific circumstances of prolonged departmental harassment.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
D.K. BOSE
VIPIN SANGHI
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
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
