HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J.(Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent who appears in person.
2. Pertaining to whether respondent had to pay `18,000/- as a one-time payment for the CGHS card or `60,000/- has been settled by this Court vide order dated January 25, 2012. The resolution of the dispute is in favour of the respondent and thus we are concerned with only one issue.
3. The issue relates to the directions issued by the Tribunal as per the impugned decision dated August 04, 2011 to the effect that the respondent would be entitled to simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date retiral benefits, tabulated in paragraph 8 of the impugned decision, became payable till the date when payment was made.
4. In paragraph 8 of the impugned decision the Tribunal has put in a tabular form the dates as under:-
5. Relevant facts to be noted are that the date on which respondent would have ordinarily superannuated was July 31, 2009 and keeping in view that the date was approaching, respondent filled up the necessary papers to be processed by the department, so that his terminal dues as also monthly pension could be paid after respondent superannuated from service on July 31, 2009. However, an event of material effect took place. Before he superannuated from service on January 30, 2009, the respondent submitted an application to the department intimating his desire to be voluntarily retired and for which he gave necessary three months’ notice i.e. indicated that he be retired voluntarily on the afternoon of April 30, 2009. The request was acceded to. The respondent was given the benefit of voluntary retirement as prayed for.
6. The effect was that the paper submitted by the petitioner, to be processed by the department, for terminal dues as also pension to be sanctioned required to be re-submitted inasmuch as the date of the respondent’s retirement stood pre-poned to April 30, 2009 as against the normal date of superannuation being July 31, 2009.
7. The papers furnished by the respondent, to be processed by the department, were detected warranting a correction and corrective steps were thereafter taken by the petitioner on July 25, 2009. He re-submitted the papers. They were processed. The commutation of the pension was sanctioned on July 23, 2009 and the Pension Payment Order was issued on August 06, 2009.
8. The pension was released on August 06, 2009, commuted pension was released on July 23, 2009. GPF was released on September 29, 2009. Gratuity was released on August 27, 2009. Leave encashment and Group Insurance benefits were released on October 09, 2009. The delay ranging between 2½ months to 5 months has been occasioned due to afore-noted circumstances and thus we do not find any supine indifference or negligence on the part of the department and thus dispose of the writ petition quashing the part of the impugned order where it has been directed that the writ petitioner would pay simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date when the respondent retired till when the payments were made.
9. At this stage respondent urges that certain claims like LTC, TA and pay arrears have yet to be released to him.
10. The respondent is not the writ petitioner before us but while disposing of the writ petition we would observe that if any further dues have to be paid to the respondent the department would ensure that the same are paid as expeditiously as possible and possibly within 30 days from today.
11. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
12. No costs.
13. DASTI.
CM No.1106/2012 Since the writ petition stands disposed of instant application seeking interim stay of the impugned order stands disposed of as infructuous.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE JANUARY 07, 2013 dkb (VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE