Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 381 (TS)

Vadala Venkanna v. TSRTC

2023-06-05

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2023
ORDER : Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned standing counsel appearing for the Respondents/RTC. 2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue Writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in not paying the leave encashment of 300 days during the span of 20.03.1980 to 31.05.21018 and the petitioner retired from service on 31.5.2018 as Junior Assistant under the control of the 3rd Respondent and the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,30,700/- along with accrued interest of 9% per annum for delayed payment of retirement benefits and consequently direct the respondents to pay the leave encashment for 300 days for an amount of Rs.5,30,700/- along with accrued interest of 9% per annum from time to time for delayed payment to the petitioner till the date of realization. 3. The Case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a. The petitioner was initially appointed as Office boy on 20.3.1980 and subsequently worked as Record Tracer and later worked as Routine clerk wherein the petitioner was later promoted to the post of Junior Assistant and attained the superannuation on 31.5.2018. b. The petitioner rendered service nearly 38 years and during this span, the petitioner was entitled for leave encashment of 300 days towards earned leaves. As on the date of retirement/superannuation, the same was not paid to the petitioner even after lapse of 16 months which amounts to Rs. 5,30,700/- along with accrued interest of 9% for delayed payments of retiral benefits. c. Petitioner made a representation to the Regional Manager, TSRTC, Karimnagar on 08.09.2019 asking to pay the amount and the copies of it were sent to first, 3rd and 4th respondent through RPAD and the same were acknowledged by the respondents. The entitled amount of the petitioner is further strengthened by the decisions of the Supreme Court and Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in 2015 (1) SLR 517 (Raj) which was decided on 03.04.2014 in Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1098 of 2013 for delayed payments of retiral benefits and as the petitioner had waited for more than 16 months, the petitioner is rightly claiming the delayed payment. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. The case of the Respondents, in brief, is as follows: a. Petitioner had attended service in the Respondent Corporation and retired from service on 31.5.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation and he was paid an amount of Rs. 19,72,187/- i.e. towards Gratuity, PF, CCS, RPS-2013 Bond amount, Settlement Salary & Difference of gratuity. b. In the view of the financial crisis in the corporation, the terminal leave Encashment benefit is being paid in phased manner to the retired employees at present, the Terminal Leave Encashment has been paid to the employees who retired up to 31.03.2018 and the payment of the petitioner of Terminal Leave Encashment will be considered as per the petitioners turn. Hence, the petition may be closed in the interest of justice. PERUSED THE RECORD : 5. The counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, in particular, paras 4 and 5 read as under : “4) It is submitted that the petitioner rendered service in the Corporation and retired from service on 31.05.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation. He was paid the following retirement benefits. i) Gratuity Rs. 9,92,085.00 ii) PF Rs. 2,91,627.00 iii) CCS Rs. 4,99,014.00 iv) RPS-2013 Bond amount Rs. 1,19,451.00 v) Settlement Salary Rs. 52,734.00 vi) Difference of Gratuity Rs. 17,276.00 TOTAL Rs.19,72,187.00 5) It is submitted that in view of severe financial crisis in the Corporation, the Terminal Leave Encashment benefit is being paid in phased manner to the Retired Employees. At present, the Terminal Leave Encashment has been paid to the Employees who were retired up to 31.03.2018, whereas the Petitioner retired on 31.05.2018. Therefore, his case for payment of Terminal Leave Encashment will be considered as per his turn.” 6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION : a. A bare perusal of para 5 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondents (referred to and extracted above) clearly indicates that the Terminal Leave Encashment benefit which the Petitioner is entitled as per rules is not disputed by the Respondents herein and further it is the case of the Respondents that the Terminal Leave Encashment has been paid to the employees who were retired up to 31.03.2018, whereas the Petitioner retired on 31.05.2018 and therefore Petitioner’s case for payment of Terminal Leave Encashment will be considered as per his turn. b. During the pendency of the writ petition the Petitioner passed away and the Petitioner’s wife named Vadala Venkata Laxmi has been brought on record vide Orders dt. 23.08.2022. A reply affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner placing reliance on the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court at Hyderabad in Ch. Rama Rao v Government of A.P. and others reported in (2014) 2 ALD 26 and also the judgment of the Apex Court S.K.Dua Vs. State of Haryana in judgement reported (2008) 3 SCC 44 , Order dated 10.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.28631/2009, and the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondents to pay the leave encashment of Rs.5,30,700/-along with accrued interest of 9% p.a. for delayed payment. 7. The Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court dated 12.03.2008 in Manipal Academy of High Education Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner reported in AIR 2008 SC 1951 and the judgement of the Apex Court dated 15.09.2004 in State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. S.R.Hr.Sec. School & Others reported in (2005) 10 SCC 346 and contends that the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief prayed for in the present writ petition. 8. This Court opines that the entitlement of an employee to receive pension and other retirement benefits entitled as per law, is right to property and it is only when valid legal basis exists, that the pension and other retirement benefits can be withheld. The judgments relied upon by the Petitioner referred to above also clearly indicate that an employee is entitled for grant of interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits. This Court opines that a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retirer in proper time. This Court opines that if the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the retired employee the benefit of the immediate use of his money, the retired employee eventually will get a right to be compensated and the only way to compensate a retired employee is to pay him interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his retirement. 9. 9. This Court is of firm opinion that the judgements relied upon by the Counsel for the Respondents do not apply to the facts of the present case. 10. The Apex Court in judgment reported in (2001) 9 SCC 687 , in case of Vijay L.Mehrotra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, dt. 31.01.2000 dealing with expeditious payment of retirement benefits in its head note observed as follows : “Retirement benefits – Expeditious payment – Held, it is expected that all retirement benefits should be paid on the day of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforeseen circumstances the payment cannot be made on retirement day itself – Appellant retiring on 31.08.1997 – Payments relating to GPF, GIS, Leave Encashment, Arrears of Pay, Gratuity, Commuted Value of Pension and detained amount released to her between 27.11.1997 to 05.11.1999 – Held, there was no reason or justification in this case for not making the payments for months together – Simple interest awarded @ 18% from the date of retirement to the dates of actual payments – Pension – Timely payment of – Commuted Pension – Timely payment of – Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.34 – Interest”. Paras 3 & 4 read as follows : Para 3 : In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon after if for some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement. Para 4 : In this case, there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making the payments for months together. We, therefore, direct the Respondent to pay to the appellant within 12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from the date of her retirement i.e., 31.08.1997 till the date of payments.” 11. A Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in judgment dated 03.04.2014 in Jai Naraian Vyas University, Jodhpur Vs. We, therefore, direct the Respondent to pay to the appellant within 12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from the date of her retirement i.e., 31.08.1997 till the date of payments.” 11. A Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in judgment dated 03.04.2014 in Jai Naraian Vyas University, Jodhpur Vs. Hameer Singh Sodha& Another reported in (2015) 1 SLR 517 (Raj) at paras 8 to 10 dealing with a case of retired employee who sought payment of arrears of salary due to him and also interest on delayed payment of gratuity, pension, leave encashment, commutation and other retiral benefits under Rules observed as under : Para 9 : It is clear from the facts of the present case that there had not been any fault whatsoever on the part of the employee concerned. As to how the requisite funds were to be obtained/transferred was essentially a matter between the University and the Government. Any delay in obtaining or providing the funds could only be referred to some administrative inaction/lapse, but with no fault on the part of the employee concerned. Para 10 : In the given facts and circumstances and on the admitted position that there had been excessive delay in payment of retiral dues to the employee for none of his fault, the order passed by the learned Single Judge remains just and proper, and does not call for any interference. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. 12. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances and also the averments made at para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents that the Petitioner’s case for payment of Terminal Leave Encashment will be considered as per his turn which in the considered opinion of this Court is without any valid justification because this Court opines that Leave Encashment is nothing but salary for the unavailed leave to the credit of the employee and is part of salary in itself and further taking into consideration the view taken by the Courts in various judgements relied upon by the Petitioner in the reply affidavit filed by the Petitioner and also the view taken by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2001) 9 SCC 687 in Vijay L.Mehrotra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, dt. State of Uttar Pradesh, dt. 31.01.2000 and the view taken by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dated 03.04.2014 in Jai Naraian Vyas University, Jodhpur Vs. Hameer Singh Sodha & Another reported in (2015) 1 SLR 517 (Raj)(referred to and extracted above) this Court opines that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed directing the Respondents to pay the Leave Encashment for 300 days i.e., earned leaves for an amount of Rs.5,30,700/- along with accrued interest @ 9% p.a. from time to time for the delayed payment to the Petitioner till the date of realization within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.