IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Appellant
Versus
J.C. Passey - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9112 of 2021 & CM No. 28364 of 2021
Decided On : 27-09-2021
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--This writ petition is directed against the interim order dated 13.07.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") in O.A. No. 1244/2021.
2. This writ petition had come up for hearing before this Court, for the first time, on 27.08.2021, when we had recorded the following, insofar as the writ petition and interlocutory application were concerned.
2.1. However, we may note that, a typographical error has, inadvertently, crept in paragraph 5.1 of the order dated 27.08.2021, inasmuch as the date of superannuation is noted as 30.06.2020, whereas it should have been recorded as 30.06.2021.
2.1(a). The order dated 27.08.2021 shall stand corrected, to that extent. The remaining parts of the said order shall remain unaltered.
2.2. The corrected version of order dated 27.08.2021 is extracted hereafter:
"2. This writ petition is directed against the interim order dated 13.07.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short `the Tribunal') in OA No. 1244/2021.
3. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, who appears for the petitioners, says that, via the impugned order, the Tribunal has not only stayed the operation of the charge memo issued against the respondent [i.e., the original applicant] but has also directed the release of the retirement benefits.
4. While going through the record, we find that several documents filed are illegible. In particular, the audit report filed on behalf of the petitioner.
4.1. Ms. Ahlawat says that, she will place on record of the Court typed copies of the documents, which are illegible, which would include the audit report.
5. We may note that, the charge memo, dated 29.06.2021, was issued to the respondent one day before his superannuation.
5.1 We are told that, the respondent superannuated on 30.06.2021.
5.2. It is not in dispute that, the aforementioned charge memo concerns the event, which occurred in August-September, 2010, when the respondent functioned as the Procurement Officer in Lok Nayak Hospital, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. [See page 73 of the paper book.]
5.3. The allegation made against the respondent is that, he approved the purchase of plastic pallets [which is used for preserving medical equipment], at a rate of Rs.8,500/- per unit, whereas, according to the petitioner, the approved rate was Rs.2,800/- per unit. [See page 74 of the paper book.]
6. We will examine these aspects raised in the writ petition on the next date of hearing."
2.3. As noticed hereinabove by us on 27.08.2021 [which is, something that the record also shows], via the impugned order, the Tribunal has interceded in the matter at charge memo stage, and also directed the release of retirement benefits to the respondent.
3. We are told that, a contempt petition has also been filed by the respondent to enforce the interim direction, which was issued by the Tribunal, vide the impugned order, insofar as the payment of retirement benefits is concerned.
4. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, who appears on behalf of the respondent, says that, some part of the retirement benefits has been disbursed to the respondent.
4.1. It is not disputed by Mr. Kaushik that, a contempt petition is pending before the Tribunal, for compliance with the impugned interim order dated 13.07.2021, which includes payment of the balance retirement benefits.
5. Mr. Kaushik says that, the best course forward in the matter would be, to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the main matter i.e., the Original Application [O.A.], since pleadings in the O.A. are complete.
5.1. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat says that, as long as the interim order dated 13.07.2021, with regard to the payment of retirement benefits, is not pressed further, she can have no objection to such a direction being issued.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the O.A., i.e., O.A. No.1244/2021, and pending the disposal of the O.A., the direction contained in the ord
The Tribunal has authority to issue interim orders directing benefits during unresolved proceedings, contingent on the merit of the original application.
A claim for interest on delayed retiral benefits cannot be maintained independently without a prior order directing payment, particularly if disciplinary proceedings are pending.
Pension is a property under Article 300(A) of the Constitution, and its non-release constitutes a violation of rights, requiring timely disbursement when no pending proceedings exist.
The right to receive pension as property under article 300(a) of the Constitution of India and the State's obligation to release retiral dues.
The court emphasized the need for a thorough judicial review of the Tribunal's order regarding disciplinary proceedings, asserting that it must assess the implications of a withdrawn charge memo.
Interim applications can be dismissed when a related main petition is scheduled for a hearing, ensuring orderly judicial processes are maintained.
The court emphasized the importance of appreciating the relief sought by the petitioner and directed the Tribunal to hear arguments afresh.
The ruling clarifies pension adjustments for retired employees, emphasizing timely compliance with directives in prior judgments.
Procedural irregularities in an adjudicatory process cannot be sustained, and the person(s) who hear an aggrieved party must decide and render reasons.
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.