dofp2024_00824 — Interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits, even though admissible, in the present case, the Tribunal gave time to pay the interest within a specified time which was complied with by the department. But due to the inaction of the department in this case to drop the disciplinary proceedings pending against him on 12-10-2011, simple interest at 12% per annum on the amount received by the Applicant on 14-3-2012 from 10-11-2011 i.e., after expiry of four weeks from the date of expiry of

DoFP

Interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits, even though admissible, in the present case, the Tribunal gave time to pay the interest within a specified time which was complied with by the department. But due to the inaction of the department in this case to drop the disciplinary proceedings pending against him on 12-10-2011, simple interest at 12% per annum on the amount received by the Applicant on 14-3-2012 from 10-11-2011 i.e., after expiry of four weeks from the date of expiry of the order, being 12-10-2011 was ordered — This chunk is a part of a court case titled OA No. 210 of 2012, regarding an applicant seeking interest on delayed pensionary benefits due to the department's inaction in dropping disciplinary procee... — Facts: The Applicant filed this OA on 5-3-2012 for payment of his final settlement dues which was received by him on 14-3-2012 by order, dated 7-3-2012 totalling ₹ 6,35,286. Hence the Applicant amended the OA for payment of penal interest on delayed payment since the Applicant received the payment after 1 year, 7 months and 14 days. The Applicant retired on 31-7-2010. He was identified as a subsidiary offender in a case of misappropriation of Government money by one agent to the tune of ₹ 7,54,710. The Disciplinary Authority ordered a recovery of ₹ 2,93,515 from the Applicant out of a total of ₹ 7,54,710 as the share of responsibility of the Applicant. Due to the punishment order, dated 27-4-2010 as well as the pendency of his appeal against that recovery, the retirement benefits were withheld. Due to the pendency of the disciplinary case, the gratuity was withheld under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules and Rule 109 of Postal Manual, Volume 3. The Appellate Authority who perused the findings and order in the case ordered a de novo enquiry from the stage of issue of punishment order to the Disciplinary Authority as per Rule 109 of the Postal Manual, Volume 3. The Respondent sought extension of time to pay the interest by filing MA which was allowed and the time was extended till 31-3-2012. The Applicant was paid on 14-3-2012 which was admitted by the Applicant. The order of D.A. was reviewed and to consider the case from the stage of findings in the disciplinary proceedings by the Appellate Authority. Liberty was given to the Applicant to approach the Tribunal if the final order is against him. The Tribunal passed the order on 15-2-2011 in O.A. No. 50 of 2011 and the impugned order was passed by DA pursuant to the order of Tribunal on 12-10-2011. By the said final order, the disciplinary proceedings was dropped by President. Hence the Applicant claimed interest at 18% on his retiral benefits from 31-7-2010 till the actual payment on 14-3-2012. The Tribunal considered the case. The four Supreme Court judgments relied by the Applicant were dismissed as these cases do not apply in the instant case. The reason for delay in disposal of the case was laid on PMG, Pune. CAT, by its order, dated 10-5-2011 allowed extension of time to the Respondents up to 30-9-2011 for implementation of the order, dated 15-2-2011. But that order was received by the Applicant on 27-9-2011 only. As there was no time to refer the case to UPSC for advice, the President ordered for dropping of the case under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules,1972. The order passed by the Tribunal in M.P. No. 691 of 2011 passed on 9-11-2011 is reproduced in the judgment by which the time for compliance of the order was extended up to 31-3-2012. However, the full amount payable to the Applicant was paid on 14-3-2012 earlier to 31-3-2012. The dropping of the disciplinary proceeding against the Applicant under Rule 9 was issued on 12-10-2011. Hence the Tribunal held the view that the Respondent authorities do not delay the matter. The President reserves the right to withhold the pension and gratuity and/or order recovery from pension/gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if the pensioner is found to be guilty of gross misconduct or negligence during the period of service. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Applicant was to proceed de novo and completed in two months time from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal but it was extended up to 31-3-2012 in M.A. No. 691 of 2011. The disciplinary proceedings was dropped before that date and no objection was raised by the Applicant in giving extension of time. Hence the Applicant cannot contend that the Respondents deliberately delayed the payment of his retiral benefits. In the case of Veerabhadram v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, [ AIR 2000 SC 1918 ], it was held that relevant rules permitted the authorities to withhold the payment of gratuity during the pendency of the proceedings. In the present case, the Tribunal found no illegal withholding of gratuity by the Respondents till the final order was passed on 12-10-2011.

DoFP

Interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits, even though admissible, in the present case, the Tribunal gave time to pay the interest within a specified time which was complied with by the department. But due to the inaction of the department in this case to drop the disciplinary proceedings pending against him on 12-10-2011, simple interest at 12% per annum on the amount received by the Applicant on 14-3-2012 from 10-11-2011 i.e., after expiry of four weeks from the date of expiry of the order, being 12-10-2011 was ordered — This chunk is a part of a court case titled OA No. 210 of 2012, regarding an applicant seeking interest on delayed pensionary benefits due to the department's inaction in dropping disciplinary procee... — Facts: The Applicant filed this OA on 5-3-2012 for payment of his final settlement dues which was received by him on 14-3-2012 by order, dated 7-3-2012 totalling ₹ 6,35,286. Hence the Applicant amended the OA for payment of penal interest on delayed payment since the Applicant received the payment after 1 year, 7 months and 14 days. The Applicant retired on 31-7-2010. He was identified as a subsidiary offender in a case of misappropriation of Government money by one agent to the tune of ₹ 7,54,710. The Disciplinary Authority ordered a recovery of ₹ 2,93,515 from the Applicant out of a total of ₹ 7,54,710 as the share of responsibility of the Applicant. Due to the punishment order, dated 27-4-2010 as well as the pendency of his appeal against that recovery, the retirement benefits were withheld. Due to the pendency of the disciplinary case, the gratuity was withheld under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules and Rule 109 of Postal Manual, Volume 3. The Appellate Authority who perused the findings and order in the case ordered a de novo enquiry from the stage of issue of punishment order to the Disciplinary Authority as per Rule 109 of the Postal Manual, Volume 3. The Respondent sought extension of time to pay the interest by filing MA which was allowed and the time was extended till 31-3-2012. The Applicant was paid on 14-3-2012 which was admitted by the Applicant. The order of D.A. was reviewed and to consider the case from the stage of findings in the disciplinary proceedings by the Appellate Authority. Liberty was given to the Applicant to approach the Tribunal if the final order is against him. The Tribunal passed the order on 15-2-2011 in O.A. No. 50 of 2011 and the impugned order was passed by DA pursuant to the order of Tribunal on 12-10-2011. By the said final order, the disciplinary proceedings was dropped by President. Hence the Applicant claimed interest at 18% on his retiral benefits from 31-7-2010 till the actual payment on 14-3-2012. The Tribunal considered the case. The four Supreme Court judgments relied by the Applicant were dismissed as these cases do not apply in the instant case. The reason for delay in disposal of the case was laid on PMG, Pune. CAT, by its order, dated 10-5-2011 allowed extension of time to the Respondents up to 30-9-2011 for implementation of the order, dated 15-2-2011. But that order was received by the Applicant on 27-9-2011 only. As there was no time to refer the case to UPSC for advice, the President ordered for dropping of the case under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules,1972. The order passed by the Tribunal in M.P. No. 691 of 2011 passed on 9-11-2011 is reproduced in the judgment by which the time for compliance of the order was extended up to 31-3-2012. However, the full amount payable to the Applicant was paid on 14-3-2012 earlier to 31-3-2012. The dropping of the disciplinary proceeding against the Applicant under Rule 9 was issued on 12-10-2011. Hence the Tribunal held the view that the Respondent authorities do not delay the matter. The President reserves the right to withhold the pension and gratuity and/or order recovery from pension/gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if the pensioner is found to be guilty of gross misconduct or negligence during the period of service. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Applicant was to proceed de novo and completed in two months time from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal but it was extended up to 31-3-2012 in M.A. No. 691 of 2011. The disciplinary proceedings was dropped before that date and no objection was raised by the Applicant in giving extension of time. Hence the Applicant cannot contend that the Respondents deliberately delayed the payment of his retiral benefits. In the case of Veerabhadram v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, [ AIR 2000 SC 1918 ], it was held that relevant rules permitted the authorities to withhold the payment of gratuity during the pendency of the proceedings. In the present case, the Tribunal found no illegal withholding of gratuity by the Respondents till the final order was passed on 12-10-2011.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text