IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 7268 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 10, 2010 Sh. S. S. Rakhwal Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents/State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the Respondents may be directed to release the Leave Encashment amount and the Group Insurance amount in favour of the applicant forthwith. (ii) That the Respondents may be directed to release the Leave encashment amount and the GIS amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum since the retirement of the applicant on 31.7.1999/1.8.1999 till realization forthwith. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (iii) That the Respondents may be directed to release the Commuted pension and the amount in favour of the applicant forthwith. (iv) That the Respondents may be directed to give interest on the delayed payment of the monthly pension of Rs. 5830/- P.M. and the arrears thereof for the period w.e.f. 1.8.1999 till June 2000 @ 18% per annum forthwith. (v) That the Respondents may be directed to give interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed release of gratuity of Rs. 2,63,571/- for the period w.e.f. 1.8.1999 till its payment in June 2000 forthwith. (vi) That the respondents may be directed to release the final pension to the applicant as per Rule 64(7) as the aforesaid provisional pension of Rs. 5830/- P.M. was to be treated as final pension on the expiry of the period of 6 months from the date of the retirement of the applicant on 31.7.1999 and when the aforesaid 6 months period expired on 31.1.2000 also. (vii) That any other relief and the cost of the application may also be granted.” 2. The facts are undisputed. Petitioner joined the office of respondent No. 3 on 21.8.1998. He was to retire on 31.7.1999. Prior to his joining the said office he was working with the Rural Development Department. For the period 1.1.1998 up to 30.6.1998 there was a dispute with regard to the petitioner’s leave for which he had to file Original Application No. 452 of 1998 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Upon 3 retirement petitioner’s retiral benefits were not immediately disbursed. Consequently he had to file the present petition. 3. There is no dispute that provisional pension was granted to the petitioner in terms of order dated 5.6.2000. There is also no dispute that the issue pertaining to his service for the period 1.1.1998 to 30.6.1998, which was initially treated as dies-non was settled with the decision of the Original Application on 27.9.2001. The action of the State to treat the said period as dies-non was quashed. There is also no dispute that petitioner’s amount for leave encashment was disbursed in August, 2002. Consequently petitioner has prayed for awarding of interest on the amount of gratuity, pension and leave encashment payment of which was delayed. 4. In support of his claim learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the relevant provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short the Rules). Rule 59 mandates the Head of the Office to take preparatory steps for release of the pension by atleast two years prior to the date of retirement. The said Rule provides for different stages. In the first stage verification of the service of the officer is required to be carried out. The second stage mandates making good omissions in the service book and the third stage contemplates the completion of the papers for release of the retiral benefits. Upon completion of papers, as contemplated under Rules 60 and 61 papers are required to be forwarded to the Accounts Officer atleast six months prior to 4 the date of retirement of a government servant. The Rules provide for grant of provisional pension to the government servant where it is not possible for the Head of the Office to adhere to the time schedule fixed under Rule 59. 5. The sum and substance of the Rules is that the papers are to be processed in its entirety atleast six months prior to the date of retirement of a government servant. 6. With regard to leave encashment there is no dispute that the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (for short Leave Rules) are applicable. Leave Rule 39 contemplates disbursement of the amount equivalent to the permissible leave encashment. This amount is not to be ordinarily withheld unless some disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against a government employee. 7. Now the respondents have opposed the petition inter alia on the ground that there has been no lethargy, laxity or dereliction of duty on the part of the officials in releasing the amount due and admissible to the petitioner. In the affidavit respondents have categorically stated as under:- “3. That the applicant joined in the office of the respondent No. 3 on 21.8.1998(FN) and his service record, despite of vigorous correspondence exchanged between the R.D. Deptt. and office of the replying respondent was only received on 6-07-1999 whereas the applicant was due for retirement from service on 31/07/1999. The pension case of the applicant was processed by the replying respondent and which was sent to the Sr. D.A.G. (A&E) HP on 5 19/07/1999 but the same was returned on 01-10- 1999 to replying respondent with observations, particularly with regard to the un-verified period of the service w.e.f. 1-01-1998 to 30/06/1998, which matter is still subjudice before this Hon’ble Tribunal. However the replying respondent returned the case to the Sr. D.A.G. (A&E) HP, Shimla after attending to the observations on 28/10/1999 but the case was again returned by the Sr. D.A.G. to the replying respondent office on 10/02/2000 with a request to take final decision with regard to the dies-non period either as duty or leave. The replying respondent after attending to the observations re-submitted the matter to the Sr. D.A.G (A&E) HP, Shimla-3 on 04/05/2000 intimating therein that the matter is still sub-judice before the Hon’ble Tribual in O.A. (D) 452/98 and decision with regard to that period shall be taken only after the final out-come of that case. However request also made to grant provisional pension to the applicant and accordingly provisional pension and D.C.R.G. were sanctioned by the Sr. D.A.G.(A&E) HP, Shimla-3 to the applicant only on 05/06/2000 and on the basis of the authorization from the Sr. D.A.G. (A&E) HP, Shimla-3 amount of Rs. 2,63,571/- of D.C.R.G. was paid to the applicant vide Kangra Treasury at Dharamshala vide Voucher No. 254 dated 23.6.2000. Hence there is no delay on the part of the respondent stated to release the payment of D.C.R.G. as well as provisional pension etc. therefore, the applicant’s claim of 18% interest on the delayed payment is not maintainable and therefore, the application of the applicant is required to be dismissed on these above mentioned facts/grounds.” 6 “Para-3(i):- Not admitted. The payment of earned leave accumulated in the leave account credit of a government servant upto the date of retirement is made only on complete verification of service book as well as no interruption in the services. In this particular case, during the course of his posting in Rural Development Department (Assistant Engineer Development Dharamshala) under the control of Deputy Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala it is alleged that he (applicant) failed to perform the duties assigned to the applicant by the Deputy Commissioner Kangra and thus rendering himself liable for action of considering some period as dies-non, as such the Deputy Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala vide his office orders mentioned below, the part period w.e.f. 01-01-1998 to 30-06-98 has been considered as dies- non. 1. No. 721-24 Dated 30/3/1998 (Annexure R-1). 2. No. 812-15 Dated 4/4/1998 (Annexure R-2). 3. No. 954-57 Dated 6/5/1998 (Annexure R-3). 4. No. 1150-53 Dated 12/6/1998 (Annexure R-4). 5. No. 1167-70 Dated 30/6/1998 (Annexure R-5). Thus the services w.e.f. 01.01.1998 to 30/06/98 has not been verified by the Director Rural Development Department Shimla. Against aforesaid orders the applicant filed a case in the Hon’ble H.P. Admn. Tribunal Shimla (Sub Office at Dharamshala) listed vide O.A. No. (D) 452/98, reply of which has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala (Annexure R-6). Final decision of the same is still awaited. The payment of leave encashment will depend upon the final decision of the Court case. So far as the payment of G.I.S. is concerned, the applicant has not contributed to the 7 said scheme during the period considered as dies-non as services stand unverified, hence as yet does not qualify for payment on this account. Therefore, claim of G.I.S. will also depend on final decision of the pending Court case titled as O.A. No. (D) 452/98. The applicant has not received the salary w.e.f. 1-1-98 to 30/06/1998.” 8. Having perused the record I am of the considered view that there has been no deliberate delay on the part of the respondents in completing the formalities as contemplated in Rule 59 in the petitioner’s case. They have sufficiently explained the time taken for processing the papers. 9. Undisputedly as on the date of retirement the matter pertaining to some part of the service rendered by the petitioner was sub judice. No final decision had come in his favour. Further petitioner had joined the respondent department only on 21.8.1998 and was to retire on 31.7.1999. His service book was received on 6.9.1999 and immediately steps for release of the retiral benefits were taken by the respondent department. There has been inter se exchange of correspondence between the two departments. This was done without any delay. Hence in my considered view it cannot be said that the mandate of Rule 59, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, stood violated by the respondent/authorities. Thus the petitioner cannot be said to be held entitled to interest on the delayed payment for the amount of gratuity and pension. 8 10. With regard to the leave encashment it is not in dispute that the issue of petitioner’s leave stood finally concluded and settled on 27.9.2001 yet the amount was released in August, 2002. There cannot be any justifiable reasons of delay for the same. No doubt respondents would have taken some time to process the papers but however one year period is too long to release the amount due and admissible to the petitioner. The amount towards leave encashment was disbursed only in August, 2002. Considering that all other issues stood settled prior to 2001 itself, it would not have taken much time for the respondents to process the petitioner’s case for leave encashment. The amount ought to have been released promptly. Three months period would have been sufficient for the said purpose. 11. Hence under these circumstances petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the amount of leave encashment for a period of nine months i.e. from 1.12.2001 up to the date of disbursement of the amount. Interest shall be @ 8% per annum. Respondents are directed to release the amount within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. 12. With the aforesaid observations the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 10, 2010 (PK)