Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 24 (ORI)

Union Of India. v. Meghanand Nayak

2021-01-18

S.K.PANIGRAHI, S.PANDA

body2021
JUDGMENT This matter is taken up through video conferencing. 1. Heard Mr.S.K.Das, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.K.Ojha, learned counsel appearing for opposite party. 2. Petitioner in this writ petition assails the order dated 28.8.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 260/681 of 2016. 3. Mr.Das, learned Central Government Counsel submits that the applicant has already received interest on the gratuity amount as well as interest on G.P.F. As per O.M.No. 38/64/98/P&PW(F) dated 5.10.1999 of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Pension & Pensioner Welfare. Payment of interest on delayed payment due to pendency of dispute in Court/Tribunal on pension/commuted value of pension, encashment of leave or CGEGIS is illegal and not flow from any provision of law. He further submitted that taking into consideration Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code the usual interest should have been 6% instead of 10% as such the Tribunal committed serious error in passing the impugned order which need to be interfered with. In support of his contention he has cited the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and others reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1802. 4. Mr.Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submitted that since the conviction in the criminal case was set aside by this Court and subsequently the applicant was restored in service, the petitioners are bound to pay interest on the delayed payment once the conviction is set aside and the period between the date of dismissal and the normal date of retirement was treated as duty for all purposes. The Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order by directing the petitioners to pay interest @10% per annum on arrear pay and allowance, arrear provident fund, revised pension, leave salary, HRA, bonus and GIS from the date it was due to the date of actual disbursement hence the same need not be interfered with. In support of his contention he has cited the decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.D.Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam reported in A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 2861. 5. It appears from the impugned order that the applicant was working as a Senior Accountant in the Office of the Accountant General(A&E), Orissa Bhubaneswar. In support of his contention he has cited the decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.D.Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam reported in A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 2861. 5. It appears from the impugned order that the applicant was working as a Senior Accountant in the Office of the Accountant General(A&E), Orissa Bhubaneswar. While working as such he was dismissed from service by an order bearing No. DAG(A).Con.-MN/333 dated 5.4.2004 on the ground that he was convicted on criminal charges under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by the Special Judge, Bhubaneswar in TR No. 34 of 1989. Challenging the dismissal order, applicant has preferred before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 651 of 2004 which was disposed of on 8.12.2005 by remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal filed by the applicant. The Appellate Authority remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority with some observation. On 31.3.2006 the Disciplinary Authority confirmed the earlier order of dismissal dated 5.4.2004. Challenging the order dated 31.3.2006 the applicant has preferred O.A. No. 491 of 2006 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 17.4.2007 quashed the order of dismissal which was also challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9846 of 2007. This Court by order dated 26.3.2010 upheld the order of the Tribunal which was challenged through an SLP before the Apex Court in March, 2013. In the meanwhile this Court in its judgment dated 2.3.2015 set aside the order of conviction dated 24.11.1995 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Bhubaneswar. Pursuant to the acquittal order passed by this Court, the order of dismissal was recalled vide order dated 29.10.2015. The applicant was sanctioned the provisional pension by petitioner No.3-Deputy Accountant General (Admn.), Odisha, Bhubaneswar on 30.10.2015. On 5.4.2016 the Apex Court dismissed the SLP No. 2138-2139 of 2013 as the respondents withdraw the Civil Appeals. The Apex Court also directed to pay the retirement benefits to the applicant within six weeks from the date of judgment. The Deputy Accountant General (Admn.), Odisha, Bhubaneswar wrote to the applicant informing him that the period between the date of dismissal and the date of normal retirement i.e. from 5.4.2004 to 31.7.2010 will be treated as duty for all purposes and he will be paid full pay and allowances for that period. The Deputy Accountant General (Admn.), Odisha, Bhubaneswar wrote to the applicant informing him that the period between the date of dismissal and the date of normal retirement i.e. from 5.4.2004 to 31.7.2010 will be treated as duty for all purposes and he will be paid full pay and allowances for that period. The applicant submitted a representation to petitioner No.2 for payment of interest on arrear salary, GPF and retirement benefits. However interest on GPF was sanctioned to the applicant but interest on arrear pay and allowances has not been sanctioned as there was no delay on payment of the same. 6. The facts narrated above which reveals that the dispute was pending before the Court regarding the criminal charges under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant has approached the Tribunal for the same. However the Tribunal passed the impugned order without considering the pendency as well as the interest already paid in respect of GPF etc. 7. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party in the case of D.D.Tewari(supra) is not applicable to the present case as the facts are different. There the applicant was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and no Disciplinary Proceeding pending against the applicant on the date of his retirement. He has approached the Court for granting retiral benefit and other relief's. 8. In the present case the dispute is pending before the Court/Tribunal as such the direction issued by the Tribunal for payment of 10% interest is an error apparent on the face of record. As such we set aside the impugned order and the same is modified in the spirit of Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code to the extent that the applicant is entitled to 6% interest from the date of order passed by this Court on 2.3.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 1995. 9. The writ petition is disposed of. 10. As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No. 4587, dated 25th March, 2020.