O R D E R [ORAL]

Per: Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A)

:-

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The applicant has filed this OA praying for the following relief:-

“(8.1) Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct the authorities concerned for making payment to the Applicant of the Leave Encashment (Approx. 260 days) with 12 % interest, Group Insurance, for Commutation of 40% of pension from the date of retirement, i.e. 01.02.2022 and not from 29.09.2023 as also the 12% interest over the delayed payment of Pension, Gratuity and Commutation of 40% Pension.

(8.2) And any other relief/reliefs, order/orders, direction/directions in the facts and circumstances of this case for which the Applicant may be found entitled and Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.”

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant at the outset has fairly submitted that the relief that has been claimed by the applicant has largely been granted to him subsequent to filing of this OA, but the residual relief is still pending with the respondents so far as the calculation of interest on pending dues is concerned. He has prayed that since he cannot be held to be at fault so the claim of the respondents in their written statement that this interest is not to be paid to him is not correct. Accordingly, he has filed a rejoinder where in para-2 he has mentioned as follows:-

“2. That, in reply to the statements made in para 3,4,14 of the written statement, it is stated that the 1st ACP granted to the Applicant was in compliance of this Hon’ble Tribunal’s Order passed in OA No. 514 of 2002 vide order dated 17.01.2012 which was withdrawn by the order dated 23.05.2017 issued by Deputy Director, Administration (E). The said order dated 27.05.2017 was challenged in OA No. 283 of 2018 before the Hon’ble Tribunal and further the said order was stayed vide order dt. 17.05.2018 by this Hon’ble Tribunal. Subsequently, in view of the said order dated 17.05.2018 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal, Directorate’s order dated 23.05.2017 was withdrawn subject to the final outcome of OA No. 283 of 2018 vide order dated 15.05.2019 issued by the signature of Deputy Director (E), Prasar Bharti. ”

In para-3 of the rejoinder he has stated that the stand of the respondents is completely unjustified.

In para-4 of the said rejoinder, it is mentioned by him that the authorities concerned made undue delay in issuing instruction to release regular pension to the applicant as the same was issued on 04.01.2023 although the applicant retired on 31.01.2022. Hence, there was a delay by the respondents of about eleven months from the date of retirement.

Further, in para-6 of the same rejoinder he has further stated that the payment of leave encashment to the applicant was delayed due to less payment of income tax for the year 2020-21 which is not a subject matter to be considered by the respondents and that he had no role to play in the deduction of income tax made by the respondents’ department. Therefore, he cannot be held responsible for this delayed payment.

4. Shri Bhuneshwar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents has argued on the basis of written statement that has been filed by the respondents. He has stated that all the reliefs that has been claimed by the applicant has already been given. So far as interest on delayed payment is concerned, it is stated by him that it is because of the fact that the matter was pending adjudication before the judicial fora, i.e. CAT/High Court/Supreme Court and after final disposal of the cases all the claims made by the applicant were paid to him. Hence, the delay cannot be attributable to the respondents and they cannot be asked to make payment of interest.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant in his rebuttal argument has further stated that he has clearly demonstrated that the delay can also not be attributable to the applicant as stated earlier that the income tax deduction was not done on his part. In the event of