J.R. BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who retired as Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax has filed petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for quashment of the order dtd. 1/3/2021 by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity from the date of entitlement of the petitioner to the date of actual payment has been denied.

(2.) The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner while working as Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bilaspur was served with charge sheet vide order dtd. 24/9/2007 and inquiry was initiated against him. During the pendency of the inquiry he was retired after completion of the age of superannuation on 2/11/2011. The amount of gratuity was withheld on account of departmental inquiry and further vide order dtd. 1/12/2012, 90% of the pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and remaining 10% pension was withheld. The inquiry was completed on 23/3/2017 wherein he was exonerated by the inquiry officer from the charges levelled against him and respondent No. 1 closed the inquiry proceeding on 1/5/2018. Since, the pension and gratuity have been paid belatedly, therefore, he has filed application for payment of interest on the gratuity and pension amount which was rejected vide memo dtd. 1/3/2021 on the count that there is no provision under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 for grant of interest over the belated amount of gratuity and pension.

(3.) The State has filed their return in which they have stated that the petition is barred by limitation. The petitioner has filed petition after 7 years of his retirement without giving any proper explanation. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed by this Court on the count of delay and latches. It is further contended that the petitioner has received the provisional pension and other admissible retiral dues in year 2013 except gratuity without any demur and protest, now he is claiming for grant of interest invoking the Rules 9(4) of the Rules, 1976 as such the petition is not tenable and deserves to be dismissed. It has been further contended that the petitioner has not disclosed any fact what efforts have been made by him for early conclusion of the departmental inquiry. The petitioner was getting the provisional pension, therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioner is after thought and the petition deserves to be dismissed.