ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Rebello, J.)

1. Rule. Heard forthwith.

2. The issue, which arises in this petition, is whether the petitioner is entitled to interest for what the petitioner contends is delay in payment of gratuity.

3. A few facts may be set out. The petitioner was in the service of respondents. A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against him in the year 1996. He retired on 28.2.1999, but the inquiry was continued. An Inquiry Officer came to be appointed on 12.4.2001. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 31.10.2001. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and called on the petitioner to show cause. The petitioner filed a reply on 15.9.2004. The disciplinary authority, being not satisfied with the reply, issued a show cause notice dated 26.7.2005 and thereafter was pleased to impose punishment by order dated 31.2.2006. The punishment imposed was deduction of 10% from the petitioner’s pension. The gratuity in fact was paid on 18.4.2006.

4. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has sought to rely on the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and more specifically Rule 129-A and Rule 130(1)(c) as also the Government resolution dated 23.6.1986. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the delay in payment of interest was attributable to administrative lapses on the part of the respondents and as such he is entitled to interest in terms of Rule 129-A.

The learned counsel has sought to rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.K. Dua V/s State of Haryana & another ( 2008(1) Supreme 95 ).

On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, the learned AGP submits that as the inquiry was pending, the gratuity was not due and payable. The gratuity was paid after the order imposing punishment was passed and within the time prescribed and consequently, it is submitted that no interest on the gratuity is due and payable.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. For better appreciation of the contentions, we may gainfully refer to the following rules. Rule 129-A(1) reads: "129-A. Interest on delayed payment of gratuity:

(1) If the payment of gratuity has been authorised after three months from the date when its payment become due and it is clearly established that the delay in payment was attributable to administrative lapse, interest at the following rate on the amount of gratuity in respect of the period beyond three months shall be paid:-

(i) beyond 3 months and upto one year 7% per annum (ii) beyond one year 10% per annum Provided that no interest shall be payable if the delay in payment of gratuity was attributable to the failure on the part of the Government servant to comply with the procedure laid down in this Chapter: Provided further that no interest shall be payable in the case in which a provisional gratuity is sanctioned." Rule 130(1)(c) reads:

"130. Provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceedings may be pending: (1)

(a) ..... ..... .....

(b) ..... ..... .....

(c) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979, for imposing any of the minor penalties specified in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of clause (1) of Rule 5 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorised to be paid to the Government servant."

A perusal of Rule 130 makes it clear that no gratuity is payable until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issuance of final orders thereon. . Admittedly, in the instant case, when the petitioner retired, there were disciplinary proceedings against him. Those proceedings concluded only on the order being passed on 30.1.2006. Under Rule 129-A, the expression used is "if the payment of gratuity has been authorised".

Click Here to Read the rest of this document