IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No.689 of 2005 Reserved on: 28.7.2008 Decided on: July 31,2008 State of Himachal Pradesh & another Petitioners Versus Mr. J.C.Pant Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No For the petitioners: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. Advocate General. For respondent: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, vice Mr. K.D.Shreedhar, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja,J. This Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the State against the orders dated 6.8.2003, passed by the learned H.P.State Administrative Tribunal in OA No.1228 of 2003, as well as the order dated 11.3.2005 passed in Execution Petition No.4 of 2004. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Forest Ranger on 1.4.1965. He served in various Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 capacities. During his service, a criminal case was registered against him. After prosecution sanction was granted vide order dated 24.4.1995, the challan was presented before the learned Special Judge(Forests). During the pendency of the case, the respondent retired from service on 30.1.1989 after attaining the age of superannuation. In view of the provisions of Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Rule 39(3) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, the respondent was granted provisional pension of Rs.4,600/- per month and the amount of commuted value of pension, gratuity and leave encashment was withheld keeping in view the pendency of the criminal case as against the respondent. Against the orders passed by the Special Judge(Forests), some of the accused persons filed revision petition for setting aside the charges framed against them. The said revision petition was allowed by this Court on 19.8.2002 and the matter was remanded to learned Special Judge to re-examine the matter afresh. The respondent supplied information to the petitioners that since charges framed in criminal case have been set aside, therefore, his admissible dues may be released to him. It was alleged that the matter had not been finally decided but had been remanded to the learned Special Judge for afresh decision and after remand, the respondent was discharged by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 18.3.2003. A revision petition was filed by the petitioners against the said order which is still pending. However, the department released the amount due to the respondent as commuted value of pension, leave encashment etc on 5.1.2000. The respondent preferred OA before the learned 3 Tribunal for direction for payment of interest on the withheld amount by the petitioners and the said application was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 6.8.2003 by observing that the petitioners are directed to pay due and admissible interest to the respondent keeping in view the Apex Court judgment mentioned by the respondent in the OA within a period of two months from the date of the order. It is clear from the order passed by the learned Tribunal Annexure P-3, that there was no specific direction as to at what rate interest is payable to respondent No.1 but it was mentioned that it be paid as per the Apex Court judgment referred to in the OA. Accordingly, the State Government examined the matter and paid interest on the amount of gratuity only but not on the commuted value of pension and leave encashment since the said amount was lawfully withheld and since there is no provision in the rules for payment of interest on this amount. The respondent filed an Execution Petition before the learned Tribunal claiming interest and it was replied by the petitioners that they have paid the interest on the gratuity amount and pleaded that it is not payable on commutation of pension and leave encashment and accordingly vide order dated 11.3.2005, the respondent was held entitled for interest @ 12% on commutation and leave encashment from the date of his retirement. Further, the petitioners were directed to pay the same within a period of one month from the date of the order and on non-payment of the same within one month, petitioners were held liable to pay 18% interest from the date of retirement. 4 Being aggrieved from the said order, the petitioner/State has filed the present Writ Petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The submissions of the learned Dy. Advocate General for the petitioner were that no interest was liable to be paid on leave encashment and commuted value of pension since the amount was lawfully withheld because of the pendency of criminal case as against respondent No.1. It was also pleaded that the interest granted @ 12% can be said to be excessive and deserves to be reduced accordingly and no penal interest could have been awarded as against the petitioners. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 had submitted that the amount was due to respondent No.1 which was not paid to him and he was entitled to the interest granted by the learned Tribunal. In regard to the criminal case, it was submitted that since respondent No.1 was discharged by the order of learned Special Judge, the payment cannot be withheld on the ground that the revision petition against the discharge order is pending in this Court. It is clear that against the appellate order passed by the Administrative Tribunal on 6.8.2003 Annexure P-3, neither of the parties filed any petition challenging the said order. To our mind, the said order was also vague and not capable of being executed since interest was required to be granted by the learned Tribunal so that it could be paid by the State Government/petitioners but it was observed that it shall be payable keeping in view the Apex Court judgment cited by the respondent 5 No.1 in the OA. The matter was referred to the State Government and the correspondence continued and ultimately the State Government paid interest to the petitioner on the amount of gratuity and not on the commuted value of pension and leave encashment keeping in view the pendency of the criminal case as per Rule 69 of CCS (Pension Rules). It is not disputed that under the relevant pensions Rules, the amount could be withheld due to pendency of the criminal case as against respondent No.1. However, the said criminal case had culminated into an order of discharge having been passed by the Special Judge (Forest) and the mere fact that the revision petition against the said order was pending, is not sufficient to hold that respondent No.1 was not entitled to this amount till the decision of the case. The said clarification, which was not there in the earlier order dated 6.8.2003, has been made by the Tribunal in the Execution Petition and the order passed is to award interest @ 12% on the pension and leave encashment from the date of his retirement. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the interest has been awarded at an excessive rate and interest rate payable in the year 2005 was not @ 12% and keeping in view the fact that the interest was being awarded by the Apex Court keeping in view the rate of interest at that time, we are of the opinion that respondent No.1 is entitled to interest @ 9% on pension and leave encashment etc. from the date of his retirement till the date of payment. No penal interest is payable as directed by the learned Tribunal and the interest shall be payable for this period only as clarified above. 6 In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed and the petitioners are liable to pay interest to respondent No.1 on these amounts @ 9% as detailed above. The petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta),J. July 31, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)