Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 268

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER GUJARAT TELECOM CIRCLE,BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL & ANR. – RESPONDENT(s)
CIVIL APPEAL No.1681 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.31739/2016)
Decided On : 08-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mathur, Advocate, Mr. Chiranjeev Johri, Advocate, Mr. Ankur Rastogi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG Mr. V. Balaji, Advocate Mr. Vijay Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
There could be no question of granting interest from date of retirement in view of absence of any application under Rule 13(3) of Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981.

Headnote:Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 – Rules 4, 6 and 13 – CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Rule 69 – Interest on Commuted Value of Pension (CVP) – Commuted Value of Pension is inter-linked with pension – Pension is not a bounty – It is a legal as well as a fundamental right of a Government servant to receive his pension – It is not an act of grace by employer but it is right of Government servant who has put in required number of years of service – CVP flows out of his right to receive pension – It is a part of his pension which is paid in lump sum to employee – Applicant was given provisional pension under Rule 69 of Pension Rules – This immediately attracts Rule 4 of Commutation Rules prohibiting commutation of provisional pension – Claim for interest in regard to CVP may lie when an application has been made in time under Rule 13(3) and payment is delayed – But in a case where application is made under Rule 13(1) which can be made within a period of one year from date of retirement, same would have to be processed and at the earliest it must be brought to its logical culmination as per rules – But, in a case falling under Rule 13(1) there can be no question of paying interest from date of retirement as application itself is predicated after date of retirement – There could be no question of granting interest from date of retirement in view of absence of any application under Rule 13(3) – Order of Tribunal directing payment of interest on CVP set-aside. (Paras 21, 22, 32, 39, 45, 46 and 47)
       Facts of Case:
       Tribunal by impugned order quashed order and directed appellants to pay interest at the rate applicable to Provident Fund deposits for delay occurred in payment of DCRG and Commuted Value of Pension from 01.08.2008 till date of payment.
       Findings of Court:
       Applicant was not precluded from making any application under Rule 13(3). Had he done so, his claim for interest from the date of retirement could have been considered under Articles 14 and 21. We also take note of the fact that applicant did not challenge the order dated 04.08.2008 and he continued to accept the provisional pension sanctioned thereunder. There could be no question of granting interest from date of retirement in view of the absence of any application under Rule 13(3). We make it clear that we are not pronouncing about liability to interest on DCRG amount which is not subject matter of controversy before us and the direction to pay interest on gratuity is not being interfered with.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court in Special Civil Application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the appellants wherein appellants challenged the order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). The Tribunal by the impugned order quashed order dated 12.03.2013 and directed the appellants to pay interest at the rate applicable to the Provident Fund deposits for the delay occurred in payment of DCRG and Commuted Value of Pension (hereinafter referred to as the "CVP") from 01.08.2008 till the date of payment.

2. The first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant"), who filed the application before the Tribunal was granted provisional pension by proceeding dated 04.08.2008. It reads as follows:-

“Sub: Retirement on superannuation of 31.7.2008 A/N-Cases of officers of STS of Executive Grade (Ad-hoc) Regarding.
In accordance with BSNL New Delhi order No. 35/1/2007 Pers-1 date 3.7.2008 and on approval of the competent authority, the following officers of STS of Executive Grade) adhoc permanently abscribed in BSNL are permitted to retire from BSNL services on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.7.2007 (A/N).

Sl. No.

Name of Officer

Staff No./ERP No.

Present working unit

1.

Sh. J.R. Sathwara, DE

10913/7005735

PGMTD Ahmedabad

2.

Sh. B.P. Mishra, DE

12277/7021009

PGMTD Vadodara

3.

Sh. P.P. Panchal, DE

11560/7016759

PGMTD Vadodara

4.

Sh.N.N. Chaniyara, DE

13808/7025957

GMTD – Rajkot

5.

Sh. M.A. Patel, DE

11719/7021051

PGMTD Surat

2. The BSNL C.O. ND has intimated that the vigilance clearance in respect of Shri M.A. Paatel, (SL. No. 5) DE, O/o PGMTD Surat has not received from Vigilance Cell of BSNL and therefore the officer shall be given only provisional pension and the DCRG and CVP shall be withheld till the conclusion of the vigilance/ disciplinary case as per CCS (Pension) rules 1972.

3. It may please be ensured that there is no Vig/ Disc case pending or contemplated against any of the above officer mentioned above as on the date of retirement. If any such case comes to notice, only provisional pension shall be granted to the officer (s) and his DCRG and CVP shall be withheld till the Vigilance clearance is accorded.

4. Copy of the charge relinquishing report may be sent to this office in respect of all concerned.”

Though, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the "ACB") had registered a case against the applicant, the investigating officer, however, had found no evidence against him. Investigating officer had submitted A-summary before the Principal District Sessions, Judge, Banaskantha, Palanpur, who refused to accept the summary. The State of Gujarat thereupon challenged the order. On 30.03.2012 the criminal revision application, filed by the State, was allowed according sanction to the investigating officer to file A-summary report before the trial Court. The applicant applied for interest on pensionary benefits i.e. DCRG and CVP, which, was rejected, on the basis that the criminal revision petition, filed by the State, against the order of the trial Court refusing to accept the A-summary was disposed of and that after the order of the High Court and Vigilance clearance the amounts were paid. He approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal directed payment of interest. The High Court in the writ petition, filed by the appellants, has reasoned that on 01.08.2008 (the applicant was to retire on superannuation on 31.07.2008), there were no criminal proceedings against him. The High Court, inter alia, held as follows:

“We are unable to accept the said submission as narrated hereinabove. There were no criminal proceedings on 01.08.2008. All that the High Court in its o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Sl. No.	Name of Officer	Staff No./ERP No.	Present working unit
1.	Sh. J.R. Sathwara, DE	10913/7005735	PGMTD Ahmedabad
2.	Sh. B.P. Mishra, DE	12277/7021009	PGMTD Vadodara
3.	Sh. P.P. Panchal, DE	11560/7016759	PGMTD Vadodara
4.	Sh.N.N. Chaniyara, DE	13808/7025957	GMTD – Rajkot
5.	Sh. M.A. Patel, DE	11719/7021051	PGMTD Surat

2019 Supreme(SC) 268

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER GUJARAT TELECOM CIRCLE,BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ORS. – APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL & ANR. – RESPONDENT(s) CIVIL APPEAL No.1681 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.31739/2016)Decided On : 08-03-2019

IMPORTANT POINTThere could be no question of granting interest from date of retirement in view of absence of any application under Rule 13(3) of Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981.

Cases Referred (1)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER GUJARAT TELECOM CIRCLE,BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL & ANR. – RESPONDENT(s)
CIVIL APPEAL No.1681 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.31739/2016)
Decided On : 08-03-2019

IMPORTANT POINT
There could be no question of granting interest from date of retirement in view of absence of any application under Rule 13(3) of Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981.