Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3 (KAR)

Union of India v. J. Jaganathan

2016-01-04

K.N.PHANEENDRA, MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2016
ORDER : 1. The order dated 5-2-2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 232 of 2013 is called in question in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners herein to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on a sum of Rs. 1,03,790/- (Rupees One Lakh Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Only) from the date of removal of service till 30-10-2013 (date of payment). The records reveal that the respondent was removed from service with effect from 4-7-2012, since misconduct with which he was charged, was held to be proved. The respondent submitted a formal application for payment of pensionary and other benefits to the Department on 2-5-2013. The petitioners being the employers have paid the pensionary benefits along with gratuity, etc., to the respondent-employee on 2-9-2013. Since there was some delay on the part of the petitioners to pay the pensionary benefits to the respondent, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 232 of 2013 seeking interest on the delayed period. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the application by the impugned order dated 5-2-2014. 2. Rules 78, 79, 80 and 81 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 ('Rules' for short) deal with the procedure for preparation of pension papers for the purpose of paying pension. Rule 78 of the Rules mandates that every Head of Office shall undertake the work of preparation of pension papers in Form 7, two years before the date on which a railway servant is due to retire on superannuation. Rule 79 of the Rules deals with the stages for the completion of pension papers. Rule 80 appears to be relevant Rule for disposal of this matter, which reads thus: "80. Completion of Pension Papers.--The Head of Office shall complete Part I of Form 7 not later than six months of the date of retirement of the railway servant." From the aforementioned Rules, it is clear that every Head of Office shall undertake the work of preparation of pension papers in Form 7, two years prior to the date on which the railway servant is due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. This is not a case of superannuation, but it is case of removal from service of the railway employee with effect from 4-7-2012. It is no doubt true that removal cannot be equated to superannuation. This is not a case of superannuation, but it is case of removal from service of the railway employee with effect from 4-7-2012. It is no doubt true that removal cannot be equated to superannuation. But for the purpose of payment of pension, we have to rely upon the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Under the said Rules, the concerned Head of Office has to prepare the pension papers well in advance. As we find in this matter that the respondent is removed from service, interest of justice will be met if the gratuity amount is paid from the date of removal. In this context, we cannot lose sight off Rule 80 of the Rules mentioned supra which states that Head of Office shall complete Part I of Form 7 not later than the six months from the date of retirement of railway servant. Hence, it is open for the Department to complete the process within six months from the date of retirement of the employee. The homogeneous reading of Rules 78, 79 and 80 of the Rules make it amply clear that there is no scope for the department to delay the payment of pensionary benefits. It is for the department to undertake preparation of pension papers well in advance. However in the matter on hand, the department would not have visualized the date of respondent's removal from service, but the fact remains that the respondent is entitled for pensionary benefits from the date of removal. Even the Appellate Authority before whom the appeal was filed by the respondent questioning the order of removal, had not stayed the order of removal. Thus the order of removal continued to operate. Consequently, there was no hurdle for the Department to prepare pension papers of the respondent, at least from the date of removal of respondent from service. Pensionary benefits are paid in favour of the respondent on 2-9-2013 though he was removed from service with effect from 4-7-2012. In view of the above, the respondent is entitled for interest for the delayed period. Thus the Tribunal, in our considered opinion has rightly decided in favour of the respondent holding that he is entitled for interest on the pensionary benefits for the delayed period. Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed.