The main legal point established in the judgment is that a former employee is entitled to interest on delayed retirement benefits if the delay is attributable to the employer, as per the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

The Petitioner, who was working under the then South Eastern Railways, has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the Order dated 18.05.2020 passed in O.A. No. 260/00869 of 2016, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has denied him interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits, and to issue direction to the Opposite Parties to grant interest @ 12% per annum on such retirement financial benefits.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the Petitioner joined in the Railway service on 01.01.1983 and was confirmed on 09.01.1991 under the then South Eastern Railways. The Petitioner was then empanelled for promotion/regularization as Junior Clerk, after he was selected on the basis of written examination, vide Order dated 22/23.01.1998. Consequently, he was regularized as Junior Clerk with effect from 01.02.1992 and promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on ad hoc basis with effect from 01.02.1994, vide Office Order dated 11.06.1998. The Deputy Chief Personnel Officer (Construction), South Eastern Railways, vide Office Order dated 24.07.2002, revised the date of promotion of the Petitioner as Senior Clerk and directed for recovery of the promotional benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, by filing O.A. No. 691 of 2002. The said Original Application was disposed of, vide order dated 08.02.2008, by quashing the order of recovery and directing the authorities to maintain the Office Order granting promotion to the petitioner intact. The Opposite Parties filed W.P.(C) No. 12691 of 2008 challenging the order dated 08.02.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 691 of 2002. During pendency of the said Writ Petition before this Court, the Petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2009. The Opposite Parties, instead of releasing the retirement benefits admissible to the Petitioner, withheld the same along with productive linked bonus for the year 2008-09 and benefit of MACP as well as the increment of Grade Pay, as due and admissible after 01.01.2006, on the ground of pendency of the Writ Petition before this Court.

2.1 This Court, vide order dated 09.01.2014, dismissed the Writ Petition and confirmed the order dated 08.02.2008 passed by the Tribunal. As a consequence thereof, the Opposite Parties, vide order dated 02.06.2014, took a decision to re-fix the pay of the Petitioner from the date he worked as Senior Clerk and for payment of retirement benefits. The same was released on different dates starting from 14.08.2014 to 15.04.2015. Aggrieved by the delayed payment of his retiral financial benefits, the Petitioner submitted a representation on 02.11.2015 before the Opposite Party No.4 requesting him to grant interest for such delayed payment by seven years. Since no action was taken on his representation, the Petitioner filed O.A. No. 241 of 2016 before the Tribunal claiming interest on the amount due towards retirement benefits for the period from 01.03.2009 to 15.04.2015, i.e. the date when final payment was made to him, and for release of productive linked bonus for the year 2008-09, the benefits of MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and also the increments as due and admissible to him in accordance with law. The said Original Application was disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to Opposite Party No.4 to consider the representation of the Petitioner as per Rules. Opposite Party No.4, vide letter dated 30/31.05.2016, intimated to the Petitioner that his representation dated 02.11.2015 has not been received by them. Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted another representation on 20.06.2016, which was rejected by Opposite Party No.4, vide order dated 23/26.09.2016, stating that the claim of the Petitioner for payment of interest on delayed dues was due to pendency of the matter before the Court and not due to the administrative lapses. A