UNION OF INDIA Vs. PAVAN VED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/Union of India before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dated 04/05/2017 in OA No.201/01080/2016 by which the Central Administrative Tribunal has granted interest at the same rate which is payable in respect of provident fund amount to the employee in question to the respondent namely Shri Pavan Ved, who was not paid leave encashment in time.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/Union of India has argued before this Court that because disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioners, the Department was justified in withholding the amount in question. Learned counsel placed reliance on Rule 39(3) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and the same reads as under:-

(3.) The aforesaid statutory provision of law certainly entitles the department to withheld the encashment of leave. It has been informed by learned counsel for the Union of India that on 23/06/2017, all disciplinary proceedings came to an end and the respondent employee has been exonerated. No such order has been brought to this notice of this Court for the reasons best known to the Union of India. The employee has attained the age of superannuation on 31/08/2014. Ultimately, he has been exonerated as informed by learned counsel for the Union of India. The fact remains that the money in question was with the department and the money was given to the employee after 3 years of his retirement and there was a delay in making payment to the employee. Rule 39(3) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 does not state that if the amount is withheld and is given with delay, it will not carry interest and, therefore, though the respondents were justified in withholding the amount but at the same time, the employee is also entitled for interests as it is a case of delay in payment.