The delay in payment of retirement benefits after the petitioner's acquittal from criminal charges could not be attributed to him, and the Railway administration's plea of non-cooperation from the petitioner's side had to be proved by them.

JUDGMENT :

L. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioner, who is a retired employee of the South Eastern Railway had filed O.A. No. 455 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack for payment of his retrial benefits. He also prayed for payment of interest at the rate of 18% for the delay in payment of Pension, Gratuity, P.L Bonus, salary for January, 1996, Provident Fund dues and Group Insurance benefits. The said Original Application was heard on 01.1.2002 and the Petitioner argued his case in person. The learned Counsel for the South Eastern Railway was also present. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the South Eastern Railway that all the benefits claimed by the Petitioner had already been released in his favour and the Petitioner also submitted before the Tribunal that he had received Rs. 1,48,000/- and was also entitled to receive a further sum of Rs. 1,73,000/- towards commuted value of pension for which instruction had also been given to the State Bank of India. In view of such statement made by the Petitioner, the Tribunal disposed of the Original Application holding that there remains nothing to be adjudicated in the said Original Application. The Petitioner thereafter filed a review petition bearing R.P. No. 02 of 2003 on the ground that the Tribunal while disposing of the Original Application on the basis of the statement made by the Petitioner, did not allow interest for the delay in payment of the retrial benefits. The said review petition having been rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 01.3.2005, this writ application has been filed.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in course of hearing of the Original Application no lawyer appeared for the Petitioner and he argued the case himself. According to the learned Counsel, on the basis of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the South Eastern Railway that all the retirement dues have been paid, when a question was put to the Petitioner by the Tribunal, out of nervousness, though he admitted to have received the retired dues, could not pray for payment of interest for delayed payment and accordingly, the Tribunal also did not look into the said prayer made in the Original Application and disposed of the same holding that nothing further remained for adjudication.

As it appears from the averments made in the writ application, the Petitioner while working in the cadre of O.S. Grade-I in the office of the Chief Engineer, Construction, Cuttack was put under suspension on 21.8.1991 in connection with a Vigilance Case and while continuing on suspension, he retired on 31.1.1996. He was ultimately acquitted of the charges in the Vigilance Case in October, 1998 and not a single pie had been paid to him till he was acquitted of the charges. Till 2001 nothing having been paid to him, he approached the Tribunal and by virtue of an interim order he started getting provisional pension. During pendency of the Original Application, he was paid his retiral benefits. Therefore, admittedly there has been delay at least from 1998 till 2001 in payment of the retired benefits.

3. The ground taken by the South Eastern Railway in the review petition for such delay is that the entries in the leave calculation sheets from the date of joining till 1991 had not been attested by any officer and, therefore, permission had to be obtained from the competent authority to validate the old records and in the process there was some delay. The Petitioner also did not co-operate and only in the year 2000 when it was decided that the date of retirement of the Petitioner was 31.1.1996, he signed the documents for settlement of the retirement benefits in the month of August, 2000 and for the above two reasons, thee was delay in payment of the benefits. The Tribunal while dismissing the review came to hold that the Petitioner having not been able to prove that there was no lack of co-operation from his side in settling his retrial dues, he was not enti