STATE Vs. O.P. SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 232/99 dated 15th March, 2001.

(2.) The respondent-herein was subjected to charge-sheet and enquiry on 23rd May, 1992 with regard to the allegations of the year 1986-87 when he was due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 28th February, 1993. Because of the pendency of the enquiry the gratuity and retrial benefits were not paid to the respondent. The enquiry proceedings ultimately were the admitted factual position stating that the respondent had been exonerated and no charge could be proved against him as it is observed by the enquiry officer that the charge-sheet was baseless and it was held that if an opportunity of hearing would have been given to the respondent before issuing of the charge- sheet, it was just possible that no charge sheet would have been issued. Immediately after the enquiry was concluded resulting into exoneration of the respondent, the amount of gratuity and commutation pension was released on 6th July, 1997 and the payment of leave encashment benefits was also released vide order dated 4th July 1997. The respondent approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal while allowing the original application has directed the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of leave encashment and commutation of pension from 1.6.93 till the date of actual payment i.e. 1.6.93 after three months from the date of superannuation. The retiral benefits may not have been paid because of the pendency of the enquiry but once the respondent has been exonerated and the Tribunal has granted the relief of interest at the rate of 12% from 1.6.93, we do not find anything against this retiral relief granted to the applicant. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked.

(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance before us on the case of Union of India v. Ujagar Lal, 1997 2 SCT 148 decided by the Supreme Court. That was a case of delayed payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity and delay was not due to any administrative lapse but on account of circular issued by the Railway Board as the respondent was unauthorisedly in occupation of the quarter allotted to him. Thus there was lapse of the concerned employee to remain in unauthorised occupation of the Railway quarter and, therefore, the Supreme Court held that he was not entitled to the interest.