R.C. RATTAN V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

CWP/14307/2004

AI Insights

R.C. Rattan, a former steno-typist and Income Tax Officer, faced disciplinary proceedings that led to the withholding of his pension and gratuity after his retirement in 1993. Despite various legal battles, including a successful challenge to the initial disciplinary actions, Rattan's pensionary benefits were delayed, leading him to file a contempt petition. The court's decision addressed the delays in the payment of these benefits and granted Rattan interest on the delayed payments, emphasizing the need for timely disbursement of pensionary benefits and the rights of retired employees to seek redress for delays.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 683094 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GUPREET SINGH; ANMOL PANDIT; A K BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R S LONGIA
• Keywords: Disciplinary Proceedings; Gratuity; Interest on delayed payment; Pensionary benefits

Judgement Text

"CWP No.14307-CAT of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14307-CAT of 2004 (O & M) Date of Decision:20.02.2014 R.C.Rattan ....petitioner Versus Union of India and others .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.R.S.Longia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Gupreet Singh, Senior Panel Counsel and Mr.Anmol Pandit, Advocate for Mr.A.K.Bansal, Advocate for Union of India *** SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral): The petitioner, a steno-typist with the Income Tax Department, earned his promotions after joining his service in 1955 and was holding the Post of Income Tax Officer on his superannuation. The petitioner was charge sheeted on 27.11.1986, on the allegation that several assessments had been completed in a dishonest and mala fide manner. Thus, the proceedings, however, remained pending right till the retirement of the petitioner on 31.10.1993. The provisional pension was released to the petitioner but the gratuity was withheld and ultimately the petitioner was fastened with the finding of guilt and a punishment of withholding of permanent pension on 28.05.1996. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid order in OA Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.14307-CAT of 2004 2 No.766/PB/96, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. The Tribunal found various infirmities as set out in the said order and set aside the inquiry report vide an order dated 09.10.2001 but gave liberty to the respondents, the right to frame the charges based on the documents available and to hold a fresh inquiry to be concluded within six months from the date of receipt of the order subject to full co-operation by the petitioner. The respondents did nothing for the complete stipulated time and moved an application after the time was over seeking extension of time, which was rejected on 06.08.2002. It was found that the respondents had acted in lack of diligence and were harassing a retired employee, unnecessarily. The pensionary benefits had not been released. While dismissing the application, further directions were issued that all pensionary benefits be released within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The pensionary benefits were still not released and the petitioner had to file a contempt petition. It is only thereafter that order that the pensionary benefits were released and consequently the contempt notice was discharged. It may, however, be noticed that what was produced before the Court in seisin of the contempt petition was only the sanction order and the actual release took place only on 06.02.2003. Insofar as the present dispute is concerned, it arises out of OA No.524/PB/2003 filed by the petitioner seeking interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits including gratuity. As far as the gratuity is concerned, it was found that a prayer made in this behalf in OA No.5/PB/1997 was rejected vide order dated 23.05.1997 and thus that issue was res judicata. The balance claim arising from regularisation of suspension period from March 1985 till 1987 and payment of pay and Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.14307-CAT of 2004 3 allowances has been found barred by law of limitation as the petitioner had retired from service on 31.10.1993. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings had been quashed vide order dated 09.10.2001, requiring disciplinary proceedings to be concluded within six months. The request for extension was rejected on 06.08.2002 and thereafter contempt petition was filed, which was decided on 15.11.2002 but the actual payment was made on 06.02.2003. We are unable to appreciate the findings in the impugned order dated 20.02.2004 rejecting the claim of interest on the basis of bar of time. Such cause of action would arise only when the pensionary benefits were paid albeit without interest on 06.02.2003. The petition was filed less than a year of that date. Earlier, the various proceedings were pending and the petitioner was agitating for his rights. We are, thus, of the view that the claim of the petitioner arising from the regularisation from the period of suspension as also belated payment of pay and allowance claiming interest on the same could not have been rejected and the petitioner is entitled to interest as per the rules in case of delay in payment of such retiral benefits. We direct that the interest as per the rules be calculated and the interest with the details of calculation be remitted to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. In case of any delay, such amount will carry further interest of 12% per annum on quantified amount. The impugned order is set aside with the aforesaid direction and the petition is accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE 20.02.2014 neenu (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh "