IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1575 of 2006 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR. 2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (CONSTRUCTION) EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, MAHENDRUGHAT, PATNA. 3. THE FINANCE ADVISER, CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR. 4. THE DY. CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION)/3, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR. 5. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL FINANCE MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR. ………… Petitioners Versus 1. GAURI SHANKAR SINGH, EX.-SECTION ENGINEER/P. WAY/CON/PI./SPJ, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR, S/O- LATE JAY NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENCE OF MOHALLA- SARVODAYA COLONY, NEAR MAHABIR MANDIR, B.B. GANJ, MUZAFFARPUR. 2. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA. …………….. Respondents ----------- 7 04.02.2010 Heard Mr. Parsuram Singh for the petitioners. None appears on behalf of the respondents, although respondent no. 1 has entered appearance through counsel and filed duly executed Vakalatnama. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 03.11.2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No. 629 of 2004 (Shri G. S. Singh versus Union of India & Ors), whereby the same has been allowed, and the respondent authorities have been directed to release the amount of D.C.R.G. admissible to the petitioner with interest @ 12 % within a period of 3 months from the date of issuance of the order. 2. We have perused the materials on record, and considered the submissions learned counsel for the petitioners. It 2 appears that the petitioner was in the service of Indian Railways, and superannuated w.e.f. 30.11.2003, while he was functioning as Section Engineer in the grade of Rs. 6500-10,500/-. The post- retirement benefits of the petitioner were paid to him except the amount of D.C.R.G. leading to the original application. The respondent authorities were represented through their counsel, but had not filed their counter affidavit leading to the impugned order. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions on behalf of the petitioners. It appears to us that a minor penalty charge-sheet dated 26.9.2002 (Annexure-3), was issued to him. It appears to us that the same has remained pending since 2002, and the final order has not been passed on their own. It is a possible situation that respondent no. 1 may not be cooperating and may not have submitted his show-cause. In such a situation, the employer is not helpless, and may have in an appropriate case proceeded in the absence of employee’s show-cause. No such material has been brought to our notice justifying pendency of the proceeding for nearly 8 years. Secondly, it appears to us that it is a minor penalty charge-sheet and, therefore, maximum penalty which can now be inflicted to respondent no. 1 can be realised from his monthly pension. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order except that respondent no. 1 shall not be entitled to interest on delayed payment of gratuity, if 3 paid within three months failing which the order for payment of interest shall stand. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )