When an employee is not responsible for delays in payment of dues, administrative authorities are liable to pay interest on such delayed payments.

ORDER

By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking the following relief:

“8.1 Payment of interest @ 9% per annum on arrear amount of Rs.5,28,042 for the period 03.01.2006 to 29.02.2012, being monthwise arrears on account of increase in salary and allowances following grant of NFUG to SAG in 2021.

8.2 Payment of interest @ 9% per annum on Rs. 50,004 on account of difference in amount of encashment of leave for the period 01.03.2012 to 16.08.2021.

8.3 Payment of interest @ 9% per annum on difference in amount of monthly pension on account of grant of NFUG to SAG in 2021 for the period 01.04.2012 to 30.05.2022 (total arrears paid on 30.05.2022 being Rs.4,31,563).

8.4 Payment of interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.65,487, being difference on account of capitalized value or commuted pension from 01./03.2012 to 30.05.2022 (total period of 10 years and 3 months).

8.5 Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.”

2. Factual Matrix

2.1 The applicant joined the Indian Defence Estates Service in 1980. He earned JTS Grade on 21.05.1982, STS Grade on 19.11.1985, JAS (OG) Grade on 20.10.1993 and NFGS Grade on 19.8.1998. The respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings vide Memo F. No.5(7)/2005-D(Lab) dated 1.2.2007 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant was initially imposed the punishment of Censure vide order dated 17.6.2008, which was reduced to “Administrative Warning” vide order dated 01.02.2011.

2.2 In the meanwhile, the respondents held DPCs for promotion of the potential candidates to the rank of SAG for vacancy year 2006-07 on 16.5.2007. The case of the present applicant was considered by the DPC and kept in sealed cover. The review DPCs were also held in their meeting dated 29.8.2009 for vacancy years 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10 and again placed the recommendations for the present applicant in sealed covers. On conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the sealed covers were opened on 8.8.2011 and it was found that the DPC has declared the present applicant UNFIT for all these vacancy years.

2.3 The present applicant filed OA No. 3677/2011 on the ground that the adverse remarks based on which the DPC/Review DPC declared him UNFIT were never communicated to him. This Tribunal vide order dated 9.2.2012 directed the respondents to consider the pending representations of the applicant in respect of his adverse APARs. The respondents considered the representations and declined to accede to the request of the applicant vide their communications dated 4.8.2011 and 17.8.2011 respectively. In the meanwhile, the applicant retired from service of the respondents with effect from 29.2.2012. The DPC for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 also declared the applicant UNFIT for promotion to the rank of SAG.

2.4 The present applicant filed OA No. 2808/2012 against the rejection of his representation to upgrade his APAR for years starting from 2000-01 till 2007-08, seeking his promotion to SAG from the date his junior was promoted to such rank, with all consequential benefits. This Tribunal vide order dated 25.8.2015 quashed the orders of the Competent Authority rejecting the representations of the applicant and directed the respondents to convene review DPC for consideration of the applicant to SAG and HAG. The respondents challenged the decision of the Tribunal in WP (C) No.7279/2016 before the High Court of Delhi.

2.5 The applicant had also filed another OA, i.e., OA No. 1897/2013 seeking direction for grant of NFU of SAG with effect from 3.1.2006. T