Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 518 (HP)

Raj Mal v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation

2020-08-24

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned action of the respondent-Corporation inasmuch as it withheld due and admissible salary of the petitioner w.e.f.11.2.2011, petitioner approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No.3556 of 2018, praying therein following relief:- (i) That the impugned action of the respondent corporation, whereby the corporation has wrongly withheld the due and admissible salary of the applicant w.e.f.11.2.2011 may be quashed and set-aside and the respondent corporation may be further directed to release the same in favour of the applicant. (ii) That the impugned action of the respondent corporation, whereby the interest on such delayed payment of due and admissible salary has been denied to the applicant may be quashed and set aside the respondent may be directed to release such interest in favour of the applicant @ 12% p.a. 2. After abolition of erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, aforesaid Original Application came to be transferred to this Court and stands re-registered as CWPOA No.4654 of 2020. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from record are that initially petitioner was appointed as Peon on regular basis in the year, 1985, but subsequently he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant in the year, 2005. While he was on the roll of HRTC Rural Unit, Shimla, he was served with two charge sheets dated 29.6.2004 and 29.5.2008 for dereliction in the performance of assigned duties and disobedience of orders of the competent authority. The charge sheet dated 29.6.2004 was decided by Divisional Manager, Shimla vide order dated 30.7.2009, wherein Disciplinary authority imposed penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and ordered that qua the period of suspension, petitioner will get only subsistence allowance already paid to him,however, the period of suspension will be counted for pension and gratuity. Similarly, charge sheet dated 29.5.2008 was decided vide order dated 11.2.2011, whereby Disciplinary authority while imposing penalty of compulsory retirement with immediate effect ordered that period of absence w.e.f.24.3.2008 to 11.2.2011 shall be treated as dies non. 4. Similarly, charge sheet dated 29.5.2008 was decided vide order dated 11.2.2011, whereby Disciplinary authority while imposing penalty of compulsory retirement with immediate effect ordered that period of absence w.e.f.24.3.2008 to 11.2.2011 shall be treated as dies non. 4. It is also not in dispute that against the order dated 30.7.2009, petitioner filed an appeal before the Managing Director, HRTC, who vide order dated 7.11.2012 modified the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect to reduction of pay by one stage for one year and ordered that petitioner will not earn annual increment during reduction period and reduction will have effect upon postponing his future annual increment. 5. Petitioner also filed an appeal against the order dated 11.2.2011 before the Managing Director HRTC, who vide order dated 7.11.2012 modified the penalty of compulsory retirement to the reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year and ordered that he will not earn annual increment during reduction period and reduction will have effect upon postponing his future increment. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders passed by the Appellant authority, petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Chairman, HRTC, who vide order dated 1.1.2016 quashed both the charge sheets, as a result of which, petitioner became entitled for arrears amounting to Rs. 29, 06,411/- qua the period for which he remained under suspension. Though, department decided to get aforesaid order reviewed, but fact remains that order dated 1.1.2016 passed by the Chairman HRTC was never reviewed and as such,same has attained finality. 7. During the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the parties, especially Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate on instructions informed this Court that in the year, 2019 petitioner was paid sum of Rs. 20,65, 826/- on account of pay arrears,but since such payment came to be paid after inordinate delay, petitioner is also entitled to the interest on account of delayed payment. While referring to Annexure A-3, Mr. Jairath, learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that though total arrears of salary of the petitioner were calculated to the tune of Rs. 29,06,411/-, but since sum of Rs.8, 40,585/- was shown to be recoverable from the petitioner on account of pension arrear, suspension allowance,DCRG/Gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension, petitioner was held entitled to sum of Rs. Jairath, learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that though total arrears of salary of the petitioner were calculated to the tune of Rs. 29,06,411/-, but since sum of Rs.8, 40,585/- was shown to be recoverable from the petitioner on account of pension arrear, suspension allowance,DCRG/Gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension, petitioner was held entitled to sum of Rs. 20,65, 826/- but even that amount was paid in the year, 2019, whereas order quashing of charge sheet was passed in the year, 2016 and as such, petitioner is entitled to interest on account of delayed payment. While referring to aforesaid communication, Mr. Jairath, contends that bare perusal of the same suggests that respondent corporation while recovering sum of Rs. 8,40,585/- paid to the petitioner under various heads also recovered sum of Rs. 44,291 and Rs. 33, 493/- on account of interest on leave encashment and Gratuity amount and as such, respondent corporation ought to have paid sum of Rs. 20, 65, 826/- to the petitioner alongwith interest on account of delayed payment. 8. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, this Court finds that there is no dispute that after quashing of charge sheets by Chairman HRTC, petitioner became entitled to sum of Rs. 29,06,411/- on account of arrears of pay. This Court further finds that though sum of Rs. 20,65,826/- stands paid to the petitioner in the year, 2019 during the pendency of present petition, but no interest on account of delayed payment ever came to be paid and as such, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner with regard to payment of interest on account of delayed payment deserves to be considered. 9. Ms. Shubh Mahajan, learned counsel representing the respondents while refuting the claim of the petitioner was unable to dispute that the respondents corporation while deducting sum of Rs. 8,40,585/- out of Rs. 29,06,411/- on account of payments made under various heads i.e. pension arrear, suspension allowance, DCRG/ Gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension, also levied interest at the rate of 10.90% and as such, petitioner is well within his right to claim interest at the rate of 10.90% qua the amount paid to him on account of arrears of pay i.e. Rs.20, 65, 826/-from the date it fell due to him. 10. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed. 10. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The respondent-corporation is directed to pay interest at the rate of 10.90% to the petitioner on account of delayed payment, within a period of six weeks from today. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of .