9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Which rule existed on the date when the petitioner laid down his office? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of interest from 13-5-88 or from the date of his retirement, and at what rate? Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Which rule existed on the date when the petitioner laid down his office? The petitioner argued that Rule 19(iii)(a)(i) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 should apply, which provides for a retirement gratuity equal to 1/4th of the emoluments for each completed period of 6 months of service, subject to a maximum of 16 times the emoluments, not exceeding Rs. 1 lakh. The respondents, however, contended that the calculation should be based on the provisions existing at the time of the petitioner's retirement, which allowed for a maximum gratuity of Rs. 24,000. The court noted that the respondents failed to substantiate their claim with any material evidence. Therefore, the court proceeded on the assumption that Rule 19(3)(a) as printed in Choudhary's compilation was correct. This rule stipulated that the death-cum-retirement gratuity should be paid on the scale prescribed in column 2 of Schedule B, subject to a maximum of 15 times the emoluments, with a maximum amount specified in column 3 of the schedule. The court concluded that the petitioner had been paid the correct amount of Rs. 15,300 under the head DCRG, and thus, the calculation made by the respondents was not incorrect. Issue 2: Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of interest from 13-5-88 or from the date of his retirement, and at what rate? The petitioner sought interest from the date of his retirement, while the respondents argued that interest should be calculated from 13-5-88, based on a circular issued following the Allahabad High Court's judgment in M.C. Desai v. Union of India AIR 1988 All 283. The Allahabad High Court had awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of retirement, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3715/1990. The court considered the conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court in M.C. Desai's case and M.L. Abhayankar's case. In M.L. Abhayankar's case, the Supreme Court directed that interest should be payable from the first day of the month in which the writ petition was filed. However, the Government of India, in its circular dated 6-8-96, directed the payment of interest from 13-5-88. The court observed that when faced with conflicting decisions of co-equal benches of the Supreme Court, it must follow the judgment that appears to state the law more accurately. The court preferred the reasoning in M.C. Desai's case, which awarded interest from the date of retirement due to the illegal withholding of gratuity by the Central Government. The court also noted the Government of India's delay in issuing the circular even after the Supreme Court's judgment, which indicated a lack of reasonable speed. Given the circumstances, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement. Conclusion: The writ petition was partly allowed. The respondents were directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the petitioner's retirement until the date of payment. The payment was to be made within six weeks. Additionally, the petitioner was awarded the cost of litigation, assessed at Rs. 2500.
|
