S.R Bhanrale
Vs. Union of India & Ors [1996] INSC 828
(19 July 1996)
Anand,
A.S. (J) Anand, A.S. (J) Thomas K.T. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (5)693
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted
This
is rather an unfortunate case. the appellant jointed his service as an
Engineering Supervisor in the year 1946. He served the department in various
capacities and superannuated on 31st. July, 1984 when he was serving as an
Officiating Assistant Director General. (LTP). department of
Telecommunications. Government of India, New Delhi. An order for payment of pension
was issued on 24.8.1984 and the pension amount was Paid to him On 11.19.1984.
The Union of India which was under a statutory obligation to settle and decide
his retrial benefits and other claims by 31st July, 1984 failed to discharge
those statutory obligations and his claims remained unsettled The appellant had
to undergo tremendous hardship as his claim for encashment of earned leave,
increment arrears, special pay due, L.TC etc. remained unsettled and his
numerous representations to the department also evoked no response. The
appellant thereafter served a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. claiming his dues
together with interest and compensation. Even that did not make the respondents
move. 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 India to file the counter and meet the
claims as set up by the appellant. No counter was however, 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
awarded a lump sum amount of "Rs.200/-" by way of interest on delayed
payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity and G.P.F. as full compensation".
The D.C.R.G. was 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 along with some documents in this Court denying the claim and pleading
that his claim for 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 projected 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 took 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 Shri Arya, that
certain claims made by the appellant towards leave encashment, efficiency bar arrears
and proforma promotion arrears were due to the appellant and after calculating
the same, were paid to the appellant by means of different cheques in this
Court. A total amount of Rs. 19. 551/- has been paid to the appellant during
the pendency of the proceedings in this Court towards the claims made by the
appellant for leave encashment (Rs.9059/-) increment arrears as crossing
efficiency bar (Rs.4499/-) proforma promotion arrears (Rs.5993/-) Other claims
were not admitted.
The
amounts now paid to the appellant admittedly fell due to him much before his
retirement. The same was wrongfully withheld. It was, 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 making the
Payments promptly when the same fell due. it is not as if the appellant had
woken up after a decade to claim is dues. 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 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 to him at the appropriate time atleast in 1984 when he retired,
the appellant would have been saved from lot of unnecessary harassment beside
he would have earned interest on that amount also. He could have utilized that amount
for other purposes. He was denied the same on account of the default of the
department. The appellant in his reply to the statement of 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 towards interest and
compensation etc.
After
hearing learned counsel for the parties and discussing this 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 As 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 addition to the claim amount 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 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 dated 4th March, 1993 and dispose of the appeal in the above
terms.
Back
Pages: 1 2