S.R. BHANRALE A

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JULY 19, 1996

[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, J.I.] B

Service Law-Pension and retiral benejit,.._Long delay in paynzent-Deprecation of-Departnzent of Telecon1n11tnications-Assistant Director General-Service of ~O ycars--Superannuation-Pay111ent of Pension made-Wrol!gful withholding of other retiral benefits ( Encashment of eamed C leave, increnient arrears, jpecial ]Jay due and LTC etc.)-Adnzinistrative

T1ibwzal rejected employee's application but granted a lump sum interest of

R>. 200 011 delayed payme11t of DCRG al!d GPF---Appeal-Bcfore Supreme

Court claim opposed on the grou11d of limitation but ultimately Depwtment conceded the claim in part and paid after 12 years of retirement-Held it was D improper for the employer to plead limitation against claim of its employees when the Departn1ent itself had defaulted the payn1ent:-R.elief to employee-With a vie1v to settling the equities and do conzplete justice between the pa1ties--Goven11nent directed to pay ntpees two lakhs to e1111J!oyee towards interest, conzpensation and litigation expenses for lVrongful withholding of aniount-ln case the said aniount is not paid with_in two nionths, it shall bear E interest @ 12% per annum-Order of Tribunal set aside.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9489 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.3.93 of the Central Ad- F minis\rative Tribunal, New Delhi in 0.A. No. 1302 of 1987.

Ranjit Kumar for the Appellant.

V.C. Mahajan, S.M.A. Qua<lri and C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents.

G The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

This is rather an unfortunate case. The appellant joined his service as an Engineering Supervisor in the year 1946. He served the department H 763

764 SUPREME COUICf REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A in various capacities and superannuated un 3lt July. 1984 when he was serving as an Officiating Assistant Director General (LTP). Department of

rfeleco1nn1unjcation:-i. Govcrnn1ent of India, Nev; Delhi. An order for payn1ent of pension \Va~ issued 011 24.8.1984 and the pension an1ount \Vas paid to him on l LJO. l9S4. The Union of lnJia which was under a statutory

B obligation to scltlc and decide his retiral benefits and other claims by 31st July, 1984 failed to discharge tlH"c statutory obligations and his claims remained, unsettled. The appellant had to undergo tremendous hardship as his cJai1n for cnc<-1shmcnl of earned leave, increment arrears, special pay due, LTC etc. remained unsettled and his numerous representations to the department also evoked no response. The appellant thereafter served a C notice under Section 80 C.P.C. claiming his dues together with interest and con1pcnsation. Even that did not make the respondents n1ove. Ultimately the appellant filed an original application in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in 1987. The Tribunal issued notice to the respondents and granted numerous opportunities to the Union of D India lo file the counter and meet the claims as set up by the appellant.

No counter \Vas ho\vever, filed and the claim remained unrebutted. However, the Central Administrative Tribunal through the order impugned in this appeal rejected the application of the appellant and award a lump sum amount of "Rs. 200" by way of interest on delayed payment of death-cumretircmcnt gratuity and G.P.F. "as full compensation". The D.C.R.G. was E paid to the appellant on 10.12.1984 and G.P.F. on 1.2.1985. The appellant approached this Court.

On notice being issued in the Special Leave Petition, the respondents filed their counter alongwith some documents in this Court denying the F claim and pleading that his claim to encashment of earned leave, increment arrears etc. was barred by time. By an order dated 10th April, 1995 we directed the General Manager, respondent No. 3, to look into the grievances of the appellant as project in the affidavits filed by him before the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as in this Court and submit a detailed affidavit about the merits of those grievances. Various proceedings G cook place thereafter but we do not find it necessary to advert to those proceedings. Suffice it to say that after initially denying all the claims of the appellant, the Department of Telecommunications on 21st April, 1986 conceded through a statement filed in this Court under the signatures of Shri O.P. Arya, Director (TS), which was also supported by an affidavit of H Shri Arya, that certain claims made by the appellant towards leave encash-

S.R. IJHANRALE v. U.0.1. 765

ment, efliciency bar arrears and proforma promotion arrears \Vere due to A the appellant and after calculating the same, were paid to the appellant by

n1cans of <liffL:rcnt cheques in this court. A total amount of Rs. 19, 551 has been paid to the appellant during the pcndency of the proceedings in this Court towards the claims made by the appellant for leave cncashment (Rs. 9059) increment arrears as crossing efficiency bar (Rs. 4499), profor- B ma promotion arrears (Rs. 5993). Other claims were not admitted.

The amoJnts not paid to appellant admittedly fell due to him much hefore his retire1nent. The same \Vas wrongfully \vithheld. Jt \Vas, to say the least, improper on the part of the Union of India to plead the bar of limitation against such claims of its employees, when it had defaulted in C making the payments promptly when the same fell due. It is not as if the appellant had woken up after a decade to claim his due. He had been ' asking the department to pay him his dues both while in service and after superannuation also but to no avail. In these circumstances it ill behoved the Union of India to plead bar of limitation against the dues of the D appellant. We need say no more about it because better sense has prevailed and claim of the appellant has now been settled and payment made to him.

The appellant who had served the department for almost 40 years before his superannuation was made to run from pillar to post to get his legitimate dues. It is a sad commentary of affairs. He has undoubtedly suffered a lot.

Had the amount which has now been found due and paid, been paid lo E him at the appropriate time atlcasl in 1984 when he retired, the appellant would have been saved from lot o.f unnecessary harassment besides he would have earned interest on that amount also. He could have utilised that amount of other purposes. He was denied the same on account of the default of the department. The appellant in his reply to the statement of F account filed by Shri Arya in this Court has claimed almost 18 lakhs of rupees from the department out of which more than Rs. 16 lakhs have been claimed to\vards interest and compensation etc.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and discussing the G matter with them and with a view to settle the equities and do justice between the parties, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we consider it appropriate to direct the respondent(Union of India to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. two lacs (Rs. 2,00,000) towards interest, compensation, litigation expenses etc. for the amounts wrongfully withheld from the appellant for more than 12 years. This amount would be in H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A addition to lhe claim amounl already paid to the appellant amounting to Rs. 19,551 and shall be paid to the appellant in full and final settlement of all his claims within two months from today. In case the amount is not paid within two months, it shall bear interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order till the payment is made. Keeping in view the agony through B which the appellant has gone through we hope that the Union of India shall not cause delay in making payment to the appellant. We set aside the order of the Tribunal <lated 4th March, 1993 and dispose of the appeal in the above terms.

T.N.A.

Appeal disposed of.