IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7692 of 2009 Between: K.V.Brahmaiah S/o.Veera Swamy Darmamitta,Nellore, presently residing at Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India., rep.by the Secretary to Government Ministry of Posts, New Delhi 2 The Chief Post Master General, Andhra Pradesh Circle Hyderabad 3 The Post master General, Vijayawada Region Vijayawada 4 The Superintendent of Posts Offices, Nellore divison Nellore .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari: a. Calling for the records relating to connected with the order dated 29.8.2008 in Original Application No.59 of 2008 on the file of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Hyderabad and set aside the same in so far as it does not grant the relief of imposing exemplary costs,payment of interest on the amounts due and payable from the date on which the same has become due till the date of actual payment as unsustainable and contrary to the rules b. Consequently direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum with quarterly rests on the terminal benefits due to the petitioner from 1.4.2007 (the date on which the same become payable ) till the date of actual payment; to declare that the petitioner is entitled to exemplary costs for having thrust the unwarranted list on him and that the amount of interest and costs and liable to be recovered from the personal funds of the officers responsible for the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SIVA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the above accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari: (a) calling for the records relating to connected with the order, dated 29.8.2008 in Original Application No. 59 of 2008 on the file of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and set aside the same in so far as it does not grant the relief of imposing exemplary costs, payment of interest on the amounts due and payable from the date on which the same has become due till the date of actual payment as unsustainable and contrary to the rules. (b) Consequently, direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum with quarterly rests on the terminal benefits due to the petitioner from 1.4.2007 ( the date on which the same became payable) till the date of actual payment: (c) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to exemplary costs for having thrust the unwarranted lis on him and that the amount of interest and costs are liable to be recovered from the personal funds of the officer(s) responsible for the same, and pass such other and further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-applicant was recruited as a Clerk, which was re-designated as Postal Assistant. Due to the sheer hard work and sincerity he earned promotions to the posts of Accountant, Assistant Post Master and Sub-Post Master. He was also given the Higher Selection Grade II, and was also granted the Higher Selection Grade I on 9.6.2005. For various reasons including health and other personal grounds he sought for permission to retire voluntarily and permission was granted and he was relieved of his duties with effect form 1.4.2007. By representation dated 11.6.2007, he was informed by the concerned authority that though leave encashment and provident fund have been settled, the death cum retirement gratuity and pension has not been paid to him. It is stated that in response to the above referred representation, the 4th respondent has issued a letter dated 22.8.2007 wherein it was stated that the case for grant of provisional pension under Rule 69(1)(a) of the Pension Rules (for short “the Rules”)is being processed and was taken up by the Director of Accounts (Postal). By a representation dated 18.9.2007 the petitioner pointed out that application of Rule 69 of the Rules itself is out of context and that he is entitled for regular pension as the aforesaid rule would apply only where departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted and are continued. It is also stated that in spite of the reminders sent on 12.1110.2007 and on 22.8.2007 no action was taken and hence, he approached the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to release the amounts due and payable to him on 1.4.2007 together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum with quarterly rests from the date the amounts became due and payable till the date of actual payment. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal declined to grant interest but observed that the authorities had not released the pensionary and retirement benefits including pension within 45 days and therefore, the applicant is entitled to interest at 12%. He also contended that the Tribunal has committed serious infirmity in not granting interest and it held that the undisputed fact remains that although the applicant retired voluntarily from service on 1.4.2007 and no departmental or criminal proceedings have been initiated against him nor he had been placed under suspension at the time of his retirement, till date he has not been paid pension or pensionary benefits, gratuity, other than leave salary GPF and CGEGIS Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest. He further contended that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in not granting interest as per Rule 68 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1981 (for short ‘the Rules’). He contended that a bare reading of the Rule 68 (2) of the Rules contemplates that if the delay in payment of gratuity was caused on account of administrative lapse, the Secretary of the Ministry or the Department shall sanction payment of interest. Since there is no delay on the part of the employee and it is only the lapse attributable by the Administration the petitioner is entitled for interest. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel contended that the petitioner involved in a criminal case and the matter was pending before the President of India The Tribunal after considering the entire material on record and taking into consideration Rule 9 along with Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules held that although the applicant retired voluntarily from service on1.4.2007 and no departmental or criminal proceedings have been initiated against him nor he had been placed under suspension at the time of his retirement, till date he has not been paid pension or pensionary benefits, gratuity, other than leave salary, GPF and CGEGIS. Therefore, in view of the rule position, respondents are not justified in withholding his pension or pensionary benefits including gratuity. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the respondents to release the pension and other pensionary benefits including gratuity as per his entitlement as per rule within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the respondents shall pay interest on the total amount payable at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of his entitlement to the date of actual payment. Now the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal has committed any legal infirmity in not awarding interest? We have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was initially recruited as a Clerk and he earned promotions to posts of Accountant, Assistant Post Master and sub-Post Master and he was also given the Higher Selection Grade II and was also granted the Higher Selection Grade I on 9.6.2005. The petitioner for various reasons sought for permission to retire voluntarily and permission was granted and he was relieved of his duties with effect from 1.4.2007. As he was informed by the concerned authority that though leave encashment and provident fund has been settled, the death cum retirement gratuity and pension has not been paid to him. It is also no doubt true that the third respondent vide letter dated 3.01.2008 requested the 4th respondent to act according to the Rule 9 of CCS Pension Rules. Rule 9(2) of CCS Pension Rules reads as under: “(2)(a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service: Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the President, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the President. (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment,- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President, (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the President may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service.” Coming to the interest part, Rule 68 of CCS (Pension) Rules explains about the interest on delayed payment of gratuity, which reads as under: “68. Interest on delayed payment of gratuity: (1) If the payment of gratuity has been authorized later than the date when its payment becomes due, and it is clearly established that the delay in payment was attributable to administrative lapses, interest shall be paid at such rate as may be prescribed and in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time; Provided that the delay in payment was not caused on account o failure on the part of the Government servant to comply with the procedure laid down by the Government for processing his pension papers. (2) Every case of delayed payment of gratuity shall be considered by the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry or the Department in respect of its employees and the employees of its attached and subordinate offices and where the Secretary of the Ministry or the Department is satisfied that the delay in the payment of gratuity was caused on account of administrative lapse, the Secretary of the Ministry or the Department shall sanction payment of interest. (3) The Administrative Ministry or the Department shall issue Presidential sanction for the payment of interest after the Secretary has sanctioned the payment of interest under sub-rule (2). (4) In all cases where the payment of interest has been sanctioned by the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry or the Department, such Ministry or the Department shall fix the responsibility and take disciplinary action against the Government servant or servants who are found responsible for the delay in the payment of gratuity.” A bare reading of the above Rule makes it clear that if there is delay in the payment of gratuity on account of administrative lapse, the Secretary of the Ministry or the Department shall sanction payment of interest by issuing Presidential sanction for the payment of interest. In this case, there is no administrative delay on the part of the Government. As the applicant-petitioner involved in a fraud case, the matter was pending before the competent authority i.e., the President. The case relied on by the petitioner-applicant reported in DR. UMA AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF U.P AND ANOTHER[1], is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and there are no merits in the matter and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 17.4.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Union of India., rep.by the Secretary to Government Ministry of Posts, New Delhi 2 The Chief Post Master General, Andhra Pradesh Circle Hyderabad 3 The Post master General, Vijayawada Region Vijayawada 4 The Superintendent of Posts Offices, Nellore divison Nellore 5. 2 CD copies [1] (1999) 3 SCC 438