1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3449/2006 (Gautam Chand Mehta Vs. State & Ors.) Date of order : 10.7.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. P.K. Lohara, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Counsel. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to allow him commutation value at 10.78% as per table appended with the Rules of 1996 and the arrears of the commutation along with interest @ 18% per annum. Further, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to allow the interest at the rate of 18% on the amount of gratuity from the date of his superannuation. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Stenographer in 2 the Office of Collector, Jalore vide order dated 24.1.1958. Thereafter while working as Office Superintendent Grade-I, he was appointed as Officiating Tehsildar under Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service Rules, 1956 vide order dated 4.8.1979. Thereafter on the basis of recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee under Rule 29 (A) (4) of the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service Rules, 1956, the petitioner was appointed as Tehsildar on substantive basis vide order dated 1.8.1980. Later on, his services were confirmed on the post of Tehsildar w.e.f. 20.7.1981. The petitioner was promoted on urgent temporary basis as Junior Scale Officer in Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 in the year 1986 and after completing more than two years of service vide order dated 2.1.1989 under Rule 34-A of the Ruiles of 1954 the petitioner was confirmed as Junior Scale RAS Officer against the quota of the year 1984- 85. The petitioner was further promoted in Senior Scale RAS Cadre vide order dated 10.2.1992 on the recommendations of the Review Departmental Promotion Committee under rule 28 (B) (11) of the rules of 1954 on officiating basis and finally he was appointed on substantive basis as Senior RAS Officer on 25.8.1992. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner when he was working as Senior RAS 3 Officer and he was served with charge-sheet and statement of allegations on 12.12.1995. The departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner along with one Mr. O.P. Godara and seven other persons under Rule 16/18 of the CCA Rules, 1958. During the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner was retired w.e.f. 31.12.1997 on attaining the age of superannuation. Before his retirement due to pendency of departmental enquiry, the petitioner was denied promotion as Selection Scale RAS Officer and the candidature of the petitioner was considered in review DPC and the recommendations were kept in sealed envelope due to pendency of the said enquiry. The retiral benefits including commutation and gratuity of the petitioner were withheld for almost eight years due to prolonged departmental enquiry for almost a decade. The departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner was finally concluded and vide order dated 25.7.2005, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him. After exoneration, the sealed envelope in which the recommendation of DPC was kept was opened and vide order dated 22.8.2005, the petitioner was accorded promotion in Selection Grade RAS Cadre against the vacancies of the year 1997-98 and he was allowed notional benefits of pay fixation. As per the petitioner, he was charge-sheeted in the enquiry for the allegations of misconduct related to the year 4 1983-84 and after lapse of more than a decade, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and ultimately he was exonerated after due enquiry, therefore, as per rules after exoneration, the petitioner was promoted against the vacancies of the year 1997-98 in the Cadre of Section Grade RAS. The petitioner is claiming the amount of commutation as per the table provided under Rajasthan Civil Service (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 and the amount was to be paid keeping in view the age of the petitioner on the date of retirement. As per petitioner due to omission and commission of the respondents, the petitioner has suffered huge pecuniary loss, mental and financial agony. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents for granting the benefits of amount of commutation as per the Rules of 1996 for which he was entitled on the date of his superannuation which is 31.12.1997. As per the petitioner, all the service retiral benefits for which the petitioner was entitled on the date of his retirement is required to be given after exoneration from the departmental enquiry but commutation amount has been paid to the petitioner vide order dated 30.9.2005 and the said amount has been calculated as per the table provided under the Rules of 1996 but the said amount has been calculated and paid keeping in view the age of the petitioner as on 30.9.2005. The petitioner is claiming right of 5 commutation which was existing on the date of superannuation from service, so also the petitioner is claiming his retiral benefits for which he was legally entitled on the date of his superannuation because after his superannuation, he was exonerated from the charges levelled against him after due enquiry by the competent authority. As per petitioner although, he was granted the benefits of promotion against the vacancies of the year 1997-98 in Selection Grade RAS Cadre but other retiral benefits were not rightly calculated, therefore, the petitioner has prayed that legitimate amount of his commutation and interest on that amount as well as upon gratuity shall be paid to the petitioner, therefore, direction may be issued to the respondents for granting said relief. It is also prayed in the writ petition that he was subjected to the departmental enquiry for no fault in which he was exonerated. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to allow the commutation value to the petitioner at 10.78% as per the table appended to the Rules of 1996 and arrears of the commutation along with interest @ 18% per annum. Further, it is prayed that upon the facts narrated above, it is apparent that petitioner was wrongly charge-sheeted and after enquiry he was exonerated as such, the petitioner is entitled for interest upon the delayed payment of gratuity @ 18% per annum and respondents may be directed to compensate the petitioner for the suffering and mental agony and the embarrassment which 6 he had to suffer for about eight years after his superannuation by way of awarding exemplary cost. In reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that after exoneration, the petitioner has been granted his all retiral benefits and due to promotion as per his seniority and his amount of commutation was also rightly calculated by the respondents in which there is no illegality. At the time of calculating the amount of commutation his age was considered and as per table appended to the Rules of 1996, he has been paid his dues in which there is no illegality. I have considered the rival submission made by the parties and perused the entire record of the case. In this case admittedly the petitioner was facing departmental enquiry on the date of his superannuation and after exoneration he was granted the benefit of promotion. Therefore, grievance of the petitioner with regard to the promotion has been redressed after his exoneration. Likewise after exoneration from the enquiry, the petitioner was paid gratuity and amount of commutation on the basis of his age but amount of commutation has been calculated on the basis of age after exoneration from departmental enquiry which is not proper. In my opinion, after exoneration the respondents were under obligation to 7 grant benefits of commutation to the petitioner, which was in existence on the date of his superannuation. The benefit of commutation was not granted to the petitioner due to pendency of the departmental enquiry on the date of his superannuation but later on when he was exonerated then obviously he became entitled to get commutation according to his age as on the date of his superannuation. In reply also, no reasons are given by respondents upon which petitioner is not entitled for commutation while taking into consideration his age on the date of superannuation, therefore, admittedly after exoneration the commutation was to be allowed to the petitioner for which he was entitled on the date of his superannuation because any employee become entitled to pensionary benefits on the date of retirement. Therefore, I deem it just and proper to direct the respondents to grant the benefits of commutation of pension amount to the petitioner for which he was entitled on the date of his superannuation in accordance with the Rules of 1996 and at the time of granting said benefits, the table prescribed under the Rules of 1996 and date of superannuation shall be taken into account and after re-calculating amount of commutation, arrears shall be paid to the petitioner along with admissible interest in accordance with law and if any amount is paid to the petitioner, the same may be adjusted from the arrears. In my opinion, the gratuity was detained by the respondents due to 8 pendency of the departmental enquiry in which the respondents cannot be blamed so also no order with regard to payment of interest for delayed payment of gratuity is required to be made. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for interest upon the delayed payment of gratuity but at the same time, the respondents are under obligation to grant benefit of commutation to the petitioner as per Rule 1996 which was in existence on the date of his superannuation. The writ petition is partly allowed in above terms. No order as to cost. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun