IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Raj Kumari Arora & Anr. – Respondents
Review Petition 54 of 2021 in W.P(C) 3981 of 2017
Decided On : 29-05-2023
Review Petition - Payment of Retiral Benefits - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Order XLVII Rule 1&2 - W.P(C) 3981/2017 - CAT - O.A. No.3006/2013 - T.A. No. 1470/2009 - O.A. No. 2619/2010 - 6th & 7th CPC - GPF Rules - MCD - Lieutenant Governor of Delhi - SDMC
Fact of the Case:
The review petitioner, a nursing sister with the MCD, was suspended in 1990 and faced disciplinary proceedings. She retired in 2002, and her retiral benefits were delayed until 2012. The CAT ordered the release of all consequential benefits, but the High Court set aside the order to pay salary for the period when she never worked. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition but granted liberty to pursue remedies for interest on delayed pension and retiral benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The delay in the release of retiral benefits was attributed to the SDMC, and the review petitioner was not at fault. The court allowed the review petition and directed SDMC to pay 9% interest on the arrears of pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefits from 2002 to 2012.
Issues: Delay in the release of retiral benefits, entitlement to interest on delayed payment, and the scope of remedies granted by the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the SDMC was liable to compensate the review petitioner for the delayed release of retiral benefits and directed the payment of 9% interest on the arrears of pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefits.
Final Decision: The review petition was partly allowed, and SDMC was directed to pay 9% interest on the arrears of pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefits released to the review petitioner from 2002 to 2012.
JUDGMENT
Talwant Singh, J.
Review Petition 54/2021 in W.P(C) 3981/2017
1. This review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1& 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by respondent Smt. Raj Kumari Arora with the following prayers:
"For the facts and circumstances stated in above, it is most respectfully prayed that their lordship of this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to review its order dated 02.12.2019 in WP (C) No. 3981/2017 and direct the respondents to fix the pay of applicant/Review Petitioner after taking into account the intervening period of suspension and denial of joining and after completing said exercise release the entire amount towards gratuity, leave encashment, commutation, insurance amount and pension as well as arrears as per the revision after 6th & 7th CPC. It is also requested to award 120/o interest on aforesaid dues from 2002 till the actual date of payment.
To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The order dated 02.12.2019 is sought to be reviewed. The relevant portion of the said order giving the background of the case and the view of this Court is reproduced hereunder:
"1. The South Delhi Municipal Corporation (`South DMC') has challenged an order dated 10th August, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (`CAT'), Principal Bench, New Delhi disposing of O.A. No.3006/2013 filed by Respondent No. 1 and holding that she shall be entitled to all consequential benefits i.e. salary from 21st August, 1990 till 30th April, 2002 (the date of retirement), re-fixation of her pension, gratuity etc., payment of GPF with due interest under the GPF Rules and other retiral benefits.
2. At the outset it requires to be noticed that while directing notice to issue in this petition on 9th May, 2017, this Court passed an interim order to the effect that the Petitioner need not pay Respondent No. 1 the amount claimed by the Respondent in respect of the period between 20th September, 1991 and 30th April, 2002, during which she did not render service, till the next date of hearing.
3. The facts in brief are that the Respondent No. 1 was working as a nursing sister with the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi (`MCD') at the Colony Hospital, Malviya Nagar. On 21st August, 1990, she was placed under suspension for alleged misconduct. On 20th September, 1991, the suspension was revoked and on the same date she was transferred from the hospital in Malviya Nagar to the Kasturba Hospital, Darya Ganj. The Respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 1543/1991 in the Court of the Civil Judge challenging the transfer order. Initially, the learned Single Judge stayed the operation of the transfer order. However, despite a stay of the said transfer order, the Respondent No. 1 failed to report either at the Colony Hospital in Malviya Nagar or at the Kasturba Hospital in Darya Ganj.
4. On 6th January, 1994, the MCD issued a charge-sheet upon the Respondent No. 1, which contained three Articles of Charge. During this entire period, Respondent No. 1 did not report for duty. Suit No. 1543/1991 was listed before the learned Single Judge on 27th January, 1997, when the following order was passed in the suit:
"WS to the amended plaint filed. Copy given.
Arguments part heard. It has been stated on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff can join her duties as a Nursing Sister at Kasturba
Hospital and an order to this effect shall be issued by the MCD within a week from today. Let the plaintiff join the above Hospital on receipt of the order.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the department enquiry that is pending against the plaintiff should be expedited. Issue Court notice to the Director, Vigilance, MCD to send the concerned Presenting Officer, alongwith the record of the enquiry to this Court on next date of hearing.
To come up for further arguments on 20.2.9
The court established the principle that an entity causing delay in the release of retiral benefits is liable to compensate the affected individual and may be directed to pay interest on the delayed ....
Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record; it cannot be used to reargue settled issues.
The court established that review petitions cannot be based on subsequent judgments or changes in law, and must strictly adhere to the grounds specified under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, emphasizing the lim....
A review petition cannot be based on subsequent judgments or changes in law; it must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence that was not previously available.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.