UNION OF INDIA Vs. HIMATSINH DOLATSINH PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is order dated 2nd August 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in Original Application No. 512 of 2006 directing the petitioners herein, i. e. Union of India and the authorities of the Postal Department to release the amount of Death cum Retirement Gratuity ("dcrg" for brevity) payable to the respondent herein, who retired on superannuation as Deputy Post Master on 31st July 2005.

(2.) IN discharge of his duty as Deputy Post Master, Dahod, the respondent had allowed issuance of Kisan Vikas Patras ("kvps" for brevity) of Rs. 7. 5 lacs to a cooperative credit society of employees of an educational institution. That had happened as far back as in the year 1997. When the KVPs attained maturity, the Department declined to pay interest on the amount of certificates on the ground that under the relevant rules KVPs were meant only for individuals. The cooperative society in question therefore, filed an application before Consumer Forum, Dahod, which directed payment of interest as per the KVP Scheme, post-maturity interest and penal interest. The respondent was issued a minor penalty charge sheet dated 10th July 2003 and penalty of reduction upto three stages without cumulative effect was imposed by order dated 26th August 2003. The respondent appealed against that order and it was dismissed on 7th January 2004. The respondent did not carry the matter any further. The Department also challenged the order of the Consumer Forum before the Gujarat State Consumer Redressal Commission. The Commission dismissed the appeal on 23rd February 2006.

(3.) IT appears that the respondent had also opened a monthly income scheme account for Rs. 78,000/- in favour of a lady and Mamlatdar, Dahod alleged to be in contravention of the rules. When payment of monthly interest was withheld and the depositors were asked to close the account, they filed a case before the Consumer Forum and the Forum allowed that case in favour of the depositors and the Department was asked to pay admissible interest together with costs. The costs were ordered to be recovered from the concerned employee.