UNION OF INDIA Vs. MEGHANAND NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.S.K.Das, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.K.Ojha, learned counsel appearing for opposite party.

(2.) Petitioner in this writ petition assails the order dtd. 28/8/2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 260/681 of 2016.

(3.) Mr.Das, learned Central Government Counsel submits that the applicant has already received interest on the gratuity amount as well as interest on G.P.F. As per O.M.No. 38/64/98/P&PW(F) dtd. 5/10/1999 of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Pension and Pensioner Welfare. Payment of interest on delayed payment due to pendency of dispute in Court/Tribunal on pension/commuted value of pension, encashment of leave or CGEGIS is illegal and not flow from any provision of law. He further submitted that taking into consideration Sec. 34 of the Civil Procedure Code the usual interest should have been 6% instead of 10% as such the Tribunal committed serious error in passing the impugned order which need to be interfered with. In support of his contention he has cited the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and others reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1802.