Interest cannot be paid for delay in payment of Revised Pensionary benefits

Interest cannot be paid for delay in payment of Revised Pensionary benefits

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.

OA-3559/2009

New Delhi this the 30th day of September, 2010.

Hon ble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)


Sh. Ashwani Kumar Luthra,
S/o Sh. late Sh. M.K. Luthra,
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,(Retired),
Holder of PPO No. 557030600655,
R/o H.No. W 6A/10 Western Avenue,
Sanik Farms, New Delhi-110062. .. Applicant

(through Sh. Nitin Gaur, Advocate)

Versus

1. Union of India through
Secretary to Govt. of India,
Ministry of Finance (Implementation
Cell), North Block, New Delhi.

2. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) 462011.

3. Central Pension Accounting Officer,
Trikoot II, Bhikaji Kama Place,
New Delhi-110006.

4. Zonal Accounts Office, Zonae-II,
Office of the Principal Chief Controller
of Accounts, Central Board of Direct
Taxes, Income Tax Department,
82 Maharana Pratap Nagar,
Bhopal (MP). .. Respondents

(through Sh. VSR Krishna, Advocate)


O R D E R

This is an application for payment of interest for the delay in release of the retiral benefits of the applicant.

2. The applicant was a Member of the Indian Revenue Service (IRS-IT) of 1970 batch who retired as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh at Bhopal on 30.09.2006. He was paid pension and other retiral benefits on the basis of pre-revised pay scale. However, consequent on implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, he was entitled to revised pension and other benefits in terms of his revised pay. Government of India released the O.M. dated 30.08.2008 introducing Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 and further issued a clarification about its implementation in the O.M. dated 13.09.2008. According to the applicant, his revised retiral dues were released only on 21.05.2009 after a delay of 8 months. He is not claiming any interest in respect of arrears of pay; and is confining his claim to the retiral benefits only.

3. The respondents have clarified that the revised pay of the applicant could not be fixed for want of his service-book, which was kept in the custody of the applicant himself even after his retirement from service. His service-book was received on 24.11.2008 and thereafter, on conclusion of pre-check of his verified pay particulars his arrears of pay were calculated and payment was released on 30.12.2008. The delay in pay fixation in the revised scale, according to the respondents, is largely attributable to the applicant who had kept possession of his service-book even after his retirement.

3.1 According to the instructions of the Government, a pensioner had to exercise an option for commutation of his pension calculated
on the revised scale. On scrutiny of his pension papers, it was noticed that his option for revised commutation was wanting and he was, therefore, requested to exercise his option. The option paper was received by the Commissioner Income Tax, Bhopal only on 27.01.2009. Thereafter, the papers were scrutinized and forwarded to the Central Pension Accounting Office (CPAO). But these were returned for want of information in respect of (i) date of revised reduced pension, (ii) the last pay drawn by the applicant in the revised pay pension. These deficiencies were supplied and the correct pension authority was issued on 17.04.2009 to the CPAO, who, in their turn, sent it to the bank on 26.05.2009.

3.3 It is pointed out that the papers of the applicant were processed with due alacrity at all levels and there is no unreasonable delay in payment of retiral benefits of the applicant.

4. The applicant has submitted in the rejoinder-affidavit that he had sent his option by fax to the Bhopal office on 18.12.2008. He has disputed the fact of receipt of his option as late as on 27.01.2009 as claimed by the respondents.

4.1. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the applicant tried to draw my attention to a copy of the option letter sent by the applicant by fax. Although he was strenuously trying to say that it was dispatched and received on 18.12.2008, this assertion could not be proved. The entries about dispatch and receipt of the fax at the top of the option letter are very indistinct and do not prove the assertion of the applicant.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is not a case where there was an inordinate delay in payment of retiral dues. According to him, the pension papers could be processed only after getting the service-book from the custody of the applicant and subsequently the option letter. If the admitted date of receipt of option letter is taken to be 27.01.2009 the delay involved is only 3 months which is within the permissible grace period in view of Government instructions that the delay is to be computed only upto the month preceding the month of actual payment. Even if the assertion of applicant that he exercised option on 18.12.2008 is accepted, the delay is only of one month, which according to the respondents is very negligible.

5.1 The learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is not the case of the applicant that no pension and retiral benefits were released to him after his retirement from service. His claim is only in respect of revised pensionary and other benefits. He points out that the Zonal Accounts Office and the CPAO were faced with unexpected increase in work load as a consequence of implementation of the 6th Pay Commission recommendations. Even inspite of being over burdened with work the claim of the applicant was cleared with expedition. To his knowledge, there has been no ruling for payment of interest for insignificant delay in release of retiral benefits arising out of revision of pay on account of Pay Commission recommendation. The learned counsel for the applicant also could not bring to my notice any ruling on the subject.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that any case has been made out by the applicant for grant of interest as claimed by him in the OA. In the result, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.


(Dr. A.K. Mishra)
Member(A)


/vv/