2020 (12) TMI 1101 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Orders Prompt Payment of Arrears & Interest

Sri Samir Kumar Majumder, Versus Union of India, Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, The Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, The Pay and Accounts Officer, Goods and Services Tax, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs,

The court directed the disciplinary authority to pass a final order within thirty days and release the petitioner's entitled arrears within two months of ... Delayed payment of pension - demand of compensation for amount of ₹ 10 lakhs for harassment and mental agony caused to the petitioner - interest from the date the entitlement were due till the date of payment - delay in payment of pension including commutation of the pension - HELD THAT:- This court is of the view that the respondents was, in fact, definitely deficient in making payment of the gratuity in time. As the payment of gratuity is bound by statutory rules viz Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, such payment becomes due from the date after thirty days from the date of retirement of the employee concerned. But the said payment has been made on 18.01.2019 instead of 02.03.2013. For the said period [02.03.2013 to 17.01.2019], in the considered view of this court, the petitioner is entitled to simple interest @ 7% per annum on considering the impossibility of the gratuity attachment. The said interest shall be paid by the respondents within six weeks from the date when the petitioner shall communicate this order to the appointing authority. Petition allowed in part. Issues: Delayed payment of pension and benefits, departmental proceeding malafide, statutory interest, litigation expensesDelayed Payment of Pension and Benefits:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking compensation for harassment and mental agony caused by delayed payment of pension and other retiral benefits due to a mala fide departmental proceeding. The departmental proceeding against the petitioner included charges of not attending office regularly, dereliction of duty, failure to examine passengers' luggage, embezzlement, and misappropriation of government money. Most charges were not proved, leading to a stalemate. The court directed the disciplinary authority to pass a final order within thirty days and release the petitioner's entitled arrears within two months of the final decision. The respondents sought an extension, citing procedural delays, but eventually released the dues in installments. The petitioner argued for statutory and compensatory interest due to the delayed payments.Departmental Proceeding Malafide:The petitioner's counsel argued that the departmental proceeding was malafide, causing significant detriment. The court directed the respondents to take a fresh decision based on the enquiry report, emphasizing the lack of formal disagreement with the enquiry officer's findings. The final order, passed after several extensions, was delayed, leading to the petitioner approaching the court for relief. The respondents defended the delay as unintentional, citing procedural complexities and changes in the final order's authority.Statutory Interest:The petitioner's counsel invoked Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, to claim interest for delayed gratuity payment. The court found the respondents deficient in making timely gratuity payments, ordering them to pay simple interest at 7% per annum for the delayed period. The court emphasized adherence to statutory rules and directed the respondents to pay the interest within six weeks of the order communication.Litigation Expenses:The petitioner also sought &8377; 50,000 as litigation expenses. The court, after considering submissions and averments, found the respondents deficient in timely gratuity payment, entitling the petitioner to interest. The court partially allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to pay the specified interest within the stipulated timeline. No costs were awarded in the judgment.