D T C Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. There is a delay of 187 days in filing the appeal. An application has also been filed along with the appeal, praying for condonation of the said delay. Since the learned counsel for the appellant has put forth arguments on merits of the case, we propose to dispose of the appeal on merits.

(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the appellant has raised only one issue that the learned Single Judge could not have passed an order for payment of compound interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment of pension. We have considered the said submission in the light of the records placed before us. The contention raised is that the respondents have no right to claim interest on the arrears of pension, due to the delay in disbursement, as they had themselves submitted an affidavit stating that they would not claim any interest on the arrears of pension. It is also submitted before us that the aforesaid delay in making the payment was procedural as the question with regard to respondents? entitlement for pension was a matter of inquiry by the appellant.

(3.) ON the face of it, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted in view of the fact that there was delay in release of arrears of pension to the respondents. The respondents also cannot be blamed for non-inclusion of their names in the list of the employees who opted for DTC Pension Scheme. What was required to be done has been done by them and it was for the appellant to process their case well in time for making payment of pension. The appellant also has a specific rule which provides for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on non-payment or delayed payment of pension. In view of the mandate of the said provision, it was obligatory for the appellant to pay pension well in time. It was also obligatory for the appellant to pay interest at the rate envisaged therein which is 12% compound interest for delayed payment. The contention that the respondents would be dis-entitled to receive any such interest in view of the affidavits submitted by them cannot be relied upon as the same were obtained by the appellant from the respondents on the ground that unless such an affidavit is filed, no pension would be released in their favour. Therefore, having no other alternative, the respondents had executed the aforesaid affidavits. That however would not in any manner dis-entitle the respondents from getting their statutory dues i. e. payment of the entire arrears due towards pension along with interest.