1. Claim for unsettled retiral benefits—including leave encashment and arrears—following superannuation and subsequent rejection of the claim by the Administrative Tribunal. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1090
1996(6) Supreme 258
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand and K.T. Thomas, JJ.
S.R. Bhanrale -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9489 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20181 of 1993)
Decided on 19-7-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ranjit Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : V.C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate, S.M.A. Quadri and C.V.S. Rao, Advocates.
Important Points
The government cannot plead the bar of limitation against an employee's claims for legitimate retiral dues when the employer itself defaulted in making prompt payments. In cases of wrongful withholding of dues, the court may award compensation and interest to mitigate the employee's hardship and harassment.
Subject
Administrative Law - Delay in Payment of Retirement Benefits
Act Referred
Headnote
SERVICE LAW-Retiral benefits- Claim of-Appellant joined his service as an Engineering Supervisor in year 1946-He superannuated in July, 1984 when he was serving as an Officiating Assistant Director General-Claim for encashment of earned leave, increment arrears, special pay due, LTC etc. remained unsettled for about 12 years-Representations made to department not considered-Amount due wrongfully withheld-Claim amount of Rs. 19,551/- now paid-Award of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards interest, compensation, litigation expenses etc. for amounts wrongfully withheld from appellant for more than 12 years-This amount to be paid within two months.
Held : 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 besides he would have earned interest on that amount also. He could have utilised that amount for other purposes. He was denied the same on account of the default of the department. (Para 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether claims for leave encashment and increment arrears were barred by limitation. (Para 3 )
3. The state cannot plead limitation against an employee's claims for dues when the state itself defaulted in making prompt payments upon retirement. (Para 4 )
4. A government employer is precluded from invoking the bar of limitation against an employee's legitimate retiral dues if the employer wrongfully withheld such payments. (Para 4 )
5. Tribunal order set aside; respondent directed to pay compensation and interest for wrongful withholding of dues. (Para 5 )
6. Can the government plead limitation against an employee's claim for retiral benefits if the government failed to pay them promptly?
No. It is improper for the government to plead the bar of limitation against claims of its employees when the department defaulted in making the payments promptly when they fell due. (Para 4 )
7. What remedy is available to an employee when retiral benefits are wrongfully withheld for a prolonged period?
The court may award a lump sum amount towards interest, compensation, and litigation expenses to settle equities and provide justice for the agony and harassment suffered. (Para 5 )
8. Does a department's subsequent admission and payment of dues during court proceedings absolve it from paying compensation for the delay?
No. Even if the department concedes the claims and makes payment during the proceedings, the court may still award additional compensation for the period the amounts were wrongfully withheld. (Para 3 , 5 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. This is rather an unfortunate case. The appellant joined 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 retiral 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. LTC etc. remained unsettled and his numerous representations to the department also evoked no response. The appellant thereafter served a notice under Section 80 CPC 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.
3. On notice being issued in the Special Leave Petition, the respondents filed their counter alongwith 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.
4. 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 his 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 plea
