Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1614 (CAL)

K. Appavoo v. Union of India

2023-12-13

I.P.MUKERJI, SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. We have examined the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17th October, 2023. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Our attention was drawn to the Rule 65 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 which is inserted below: “65. Interest on delayed payment of gratuity, pension and family pension: (1) In all cases where provisional pension or provisional family pension or provisional gratuity has not been sanctioned in accordance with these rules or where the payment of pension or family pension or gratuity has been authorised later than the date when its payment becomes due, including in the cases of retirement otherwise than on superannuation, and it is clearly established that the delay in payment was attributable to administrative reasons or lapses, interest shall be paid on arrears of pension or family pension or gratuity at the rate and in the manner as applicable to General Provident Fund amount in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time: Provided that no interest under this sub-rule shall be payable if the delay in payment was caused on account of failure on the part of the Government servant or the pensioner or the member of the family of the Government servant to comply with the procedure laid down by the Government for processing the pension or family pension case.” 3. We are shown and have considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 399 of 2021 and Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 12533 of 2020 State of Andhra Pradesh and Another vs. Smt. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari delivered on 8th February, 2021. 4. The date of retirement of the petitioner was 31st July, 2011. Disciplinary proceeding which was started before retirement was eventually dropped on 21st May, 2013. However, ultimately the pension was paid on 18th December, 2015. 5. The question is the petitioner entitled to interest on delayed payment of pension, and if so far what period and at what rate? 6. The disciplinary proceeding, which was initiated in 2008 was pending at the time of petitioner’s retirement, was dropped on 21st May, 2013. 7. If the disciplinary proceeding had ended in punishment or exoneration of the petitioner, we would have understood that there was a valid proceeding, which was pending at the time of retirement and continued and concluded thereafter. 6. The disciplinary proceeding, which was initiated in 2008 was pending at the time of petitioner’s retirement, was dropped on 21st May, 2013. 7. If the disciplinary proceeding had ended in punishment or exoneration of the petitioner, we would have understood that there was a valid proceeding, which was pending at the time of retirement and continued and concluded thereafter. The fact that the disciplinary proceedings were dropped in 2013 shows there was no basis for the disciplinary proceeding to have been started, according to the respondent authority. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the petitioner is entitled to interest on pension at the applicable rate from the date of retirement till 21st May 2013. 8. Pension was ultimately received by the petitioner on 18th December, 2015 but for this period between 21st May, 2013 and 18th December, 2015 we are not minded to grant any interest. This is for the reason that we do not intend to interfere with the factual findings arrived at by the learned tribunal that for this period of delay, the respondent Administration was not responsible. 9. The interest should be payable to the petitioner within six weeks of communication of this order. 10. The impugned order of the tribunal is set aside. 11. This application is accordingly disposed of.