CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

Principal Bench, New Delhi

OA 2080/2017

Reserved on:21.12.2018

Pronounced on :28.12.2018

Hon’ble Ms. Praveen Mahajan, Member (A)

Ganesh Kumar Jain

Aged about 54 years

Group „C‟

(Dismissed UDC)

S/o Shri Mahender Singh Jain

R/o 1125, Laxmi Bai Nagar

New Delhi – 110 023.

... Applicant

(By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra)

VERSUS

1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Through Chief Secretary

5^th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya

New Delhi.

2. Director General

NCC Department

Sultan Singh Building, Chabi Ganj

Kashmere Gate, Delhi – 110 006.

3. Deputy Controller of Accounts (Funds)

(GNCT of Delhi)

4^thFloor, „A‟ Wing, Vikas Bhawan

Civil Lines, Delhi – 110 054.

4. The Controller of Accounts

Principal Accounts Officer

(GNCT of Delhi)

Vikas Bhawan, Delhi.

... Respondents

(By Advocate:Shri Ankur Chhibar)

2

O R D E R

The current OA has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

“a)

Quash and set aside the impugned order dated

12/05/2017 placed at Annexure A/1 and

b)

Direct the respondents to pay interest towards the GPF

and Group Insurance for the period February 2016 till

March 2017 i.e. the actual date of payments to the

applicant @ 15% p.a.

c)

Accord all consequential benefits.

d)

Award costs of the proceedings; and

e)

Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon‟ble Tribunal

may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in

favour of the applicant.”

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant was

working

as

Lower

Division

Clerk

with

the

respondents

w.e.f.12.03.1985. He was promoted to the post of Upper Division

Clerk in the year 1997. Subsequently, the applicant was

implicated in a criminal case under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) of POC

Act, 1988. He was convicted and awarded a sentence of Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for

offences punishable under Section 7 of POC Act, 1988. He was

further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and a

fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w

Sec.13 (1) (d) of POC Act, 1988 with both the sentences running

concurrently. Consequently, the applicant was dismissed from

service. His appeal against the conviction order is pending before

the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi.

3

3. The applicants states that a dismissed employee is entitled

for release of GPF amount immediately upon cessation of

relationship with the employer. The respondents did not release

the GPF amount, DGEIS (Group Insurance) of the applicant

immediately, depriving the applicant of his only source of

livelihood by the dismissal order of the respondents. The

applicant represented to the respondents on 03.08.2016, for

releasing his dues. This was followed by another representation

dated 27.02.2017 after pursuing the matter in Pension Adalat.

4. Subsequently, the applicant was given his GPF amount of

Rs.25,39,402/- on 27.03.2017 vide Cheque No.561238 dated

24.03.2017. The Group Insurance amount of Rs.39,320/- was

also given to him on 25.03.2017 vide Cheque No.561279.

4.1. The applicant requested the respondents for interest on

delayed

payment

of

GPF

vide

his

representation

dated

18.04.2017. The respondents rejected the said representation

vide impugned order dated 12.05.2017 stating that there is no

liability of interest and while making the GPF payment and that

interest has already been allowed as per GPF (CS) Rules, 1960

i.e. the month preceding the date of dismissal from service.

5. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have tried to

explain delay by stating that the applicant himself had applied

4

late for withdrawal of GPF i.e. on 03.08.2016 and too, on advice

of the respondents. The respondents submit that before finalising

the GPF withdrawal, certain procedural formalities have to be

completed, which took some time. Hence, after exch