Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 572 (CAL)

Padmabati Mitra v. UNION OF INDIA

2012-06-29

ANINDITA ROY SARASWATI, NISHITA MHATRE

body2012
JUDGMENT Anindita Roy Saraswati, J. 1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Padmabati Mitra challenging the order dated 13.4.2012 passed by the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the application of the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 being O.A. No. 913 of 2011 rejecting thereby the prayer of the petitioner for payment of interest against the pension amount because the money had been held by the government from 1982. 2. The husband of the petitioner was an employee of Geological Survey of India, Eastern Region, who met with an accident on 18th October, 1982 and died on the same date. The respondent granted family pension to the applicant under the provision of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 thereafter the petitioner approached the respondent to grant her family pension under CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules 1939 on and from 19.10.1982 the same was rejected by the respondent on 31.12.2008. Then the petitioner moved before the tribunal in O.A. No. 452 of 2009 in which the tribunal directed the representation of the petitioner should be considered and the said representation of the petitioner was rejected on 22.6.2010. Then the petitioner moved before the High Court in W.P.C.T. No. 247 of 2010 and High Court disposed of the said writ application on 21.2.2011 directing the respondents to pay all arrear dues of the family pension on and from 19.10.1982. The petitioner moved before the High Court for granting interest which was dismissed by the High Court with a direction to move before the appropriate forum for adjudication of the said claim. 3. Accordingly, the petitioner moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, O.A No.913 of 2011 which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal for which the petitioner came before this Court with a prayer to set aside the order of the tribunal and to grant penal rate of interest for the culpable delay in paying the arrears of family pension by the respondent. 4. However, the learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that there was no delay in payment of the family pension to the petitioner as the petitioner after the demise of her husband S.K. Mitra on 18.10.1982 the petitioner was granted family pension just on the next date i.e. 19.10.1982 under CCS (Pension) rules 1973. Her son also got an appointment on compassionate ground on 21.1.1985. Her son also got an appointment on compassionate ground on 21.1.1985. Long after demise of her husband S.K. Mitra the petitioner only on 21st January, 2008 made representation with a request to grant family pension under CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules 1939 instead of under CCS (Pension) Rules 1973. The said petition was rejected by the Ministry. Thereafter the petitioner filed O.A No. 452 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench and ultimately as per the direction of the High Court in W.P.C.T. No. 247 of 2010, the respondent was directed to pay family pension to the petitioner in accordance with CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules 1939. In that circumstances according to him the petitioner cannot get any order of interest since 1982. 5. However, learned Advocate for the petitioner on the contrary submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get interest against the arrears of pension amount as the government withheld the same since 1982 and thus caused inordinate delay in payment of the benefits to the petitioner. 6. He cited a decision in the case of State of Kerala and others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair reported in AIR 1985 SCC 356 wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Court that “ pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but are valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. The liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate commences at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement.” 7. He cited another decision in the case of Dr. Uma Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 1999 volume 3 SCC 438 it has been held that “if the rules/instructions are followed strictly much of the litigation can be avoided and retired government servants will not feel harassed because after all, grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the government servant. Government is obliged to follow the rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Government is obliged to follow the rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of 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 is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the Court can certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the rules/instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case.” 8. Be that as it may on scrutiny of the entire materials on record it appears to me that there is no scope to state that the employer caused delay in payment of pensioner benefit to the petitioner since 1982. Actually the petitioner herself placed her representation to grant family pension under CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules 1939 only on 21.1.2008 long after more than 25 years of death of her husband. It was ultimately settled by the order of the High Court in connection with W.P.C.T. No. 247 of 2010 dated 21.2.2011 wherein the respondent were directed to pay family pension in accordance with CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules 1939 within 2 months from the date of order. 9. However, it reveals from the record that as the respondent did not make payment of the said amount within time for which the petitioner filed an application of contempt being CPAN No. 396 of 2011 and ultimately the respondent make payment of arrear family pension towards the difference of pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1973 and CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules 1939 on 28.6.2011. 10. In that circumstances it is amply clear to us that the respondent caused delay in making payment of the arrears of the petitioner for only 4 months from the date of direction of the Hon’ble Court. 11. In the circumstances the decision cited by the petitioner are not applicable in the present case. But in spite of that as the respondent caused delay in making payment of the arrear pension amount for 4 months in spite of direction of this Court, It is obvious that the respondent is liable to pay interest for the said period i.e. for 4 months @ 12%. 12. Accordingly the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 3.4.2012 is modified. 13. The writ petition is disposed of. 14. 12. Accordingly the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 3.4.2012 is modified. 13. The writ petition is disposed of. 14. In the facts of the present case there will be no order as to costs. 15. Let urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates of the parties on usual undertakings. Nishita Mhatre, J.; I agree