19 July 1996
Supreme Court
Download

S.R. BHANRALE Vs UNION OF INDIA .

Bench: ANAND,A.S. (J)
Case number: C.A. No.-009489-009489 / 1996
Diary number: 89444 / 1993
Advocates: Vs C. V. SUBBA RAO


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: S.R  BHANRALE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/07/1996

BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) THOMAS K.T. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (5)693

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted      This is  rather  an  unfortunate  case.  the  appellant jointed his service as an Engineering Supervisor in the year 1946. He  served the  department in  various capacities  and superannuated on  31st. July, 1984 when he was serving as an Officiating Assistant Director General. (LTP). department of Telecommunications. Government of India, New Delhi. An order for payment  of pension  was issued  on  24.8.1984  and  the pension amount  was Paid  to him On 11.19.1984. The Union of India which  was under  a statutory obligation to settle and decide his  retrial benefits  and other claims by 31st July, 1984 failed to discharge those statutory obligations and his claims remained  unsettled  The  appellant  had  to  undergo tremendous hardship  as his  claim for  encashment of earned leave,  increment   arrears,  special  pay  due,  L.TC  etc. remained unsettled  and his  numerous representations to the department also evoked no response. The appellant thereafter served a  notice under  Section 80  C.P.C. claiming his dues together with  interest and  compensation. Even that did not make the respondents move. Ultimately the appellant filed an original application in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench.  New Delhi.  in 1987.  The Tribunal  issued notice to the respondents and granted numerous opportunities to the  Union of  India to  file the  counter and  meet  the claims as  set up  by the appellant. No counter was however, filed  and  the  claim  remained  unrebutted.  However,  the Central Administrative  Tribunal through  the order impugned in this appeal rejected the application of the appellant and awarded a  lump sum amount of "Rs. 200/-" by way of interest on delayed  payment  of  death-cum-retirement  gratuity  and G.P.F. as  full compensation".  The D.C.R.G. was paid to the appellant  on   10.12.1984  and   G.P.F.  on  1.2.1985.  The appellant approached this Court.      On notice  being issued  in the Special Leave Petition, the respondents filed their counter alongwith some documents

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

in this  Court denying the claim and pleading that his claim for encashment  of earned  leave increment  arrears etc. was barred by  time. By  an order  dated  10th  April,  1995  we directed the  General Manager respondent No. 3. to look into the  grievances   of  the  appellant  as  projected  in  the affidavits filed  by him  before the  Central Administrative Tribunal as  well as  in this  Court and  submit a  detailed affidavit about  the merits  of  those  grievances.  Various proceedings took  Place thereafter  but we  do not  find  it necessary to  advert to those proceedings. Suffice it to say that.  after   initially  denying  all  the  claims  of  the appellant, the  Department  of  Telecommunications  on  21st April, 1986 conceded through a statement filed in this Court under the signatures of Shri O.P. Arya, Director (TS), which was also  supported by  an  affidavit  of  Shri  Arya,  that certain  claims   made  by   the  appellant   towards  leave encashment, efficiency  bar arrears  and proforma  promotion arrears were  due to the appellant and after calculating the same, were  paid to  the appellant  by  means  of  different cheques in  this Court.  A total amount of Rs. 19. 551/- has been paid  to the  appellant  during  the  pendency  of  the proceedings in  this Court  towards the  claims made  by the appellant  for   leave  encashment  (Rs.  9059/-)  increment arrears as  crossing efficiency  bar (Rs.  4499/-)  proforma promotion  arrears   (Rs.  5993/-)  Other  claims  were  not admitted.      The amounts  now paid  to the appellant admittedly fell due  to  him  much  before  his  retirement.  The  same  was wrongfully withheld.  It was,  to say the least, improper on the part  of  the  Union  of  India  to  plead  the  bar  of limitation against  such claims of its employees when it had defaulted in making the Payments promptly when the same fell due. it  is not  as if  the appellant  had woken  up after a decade to  claim is  dues. He had been asking the department to pay  him  his  dues  both  while  in  service  and  after superannuation also  but to no avail. In these circumstances it ill behoved the Union of India to Plead bar of limitation against the dues of the appellant. We need say no more about it because  better sense  has prevailed  and  claim  of  the appellant has  now been settled and Payment made to him. The appellant who  had served the department for almost 40 years before his  superannuation was  made to  run from  pillar to post to  get his  legitimate dues. It is a sad commentary of affairs, He  has undoubtedly  suffered a lot. Had the amount which has  now been found due and  paid. been paid to him at the appropriate  time atleast  in 1984  when he retired, the appellant would  have been  saved from  lot  of  unnecessary harassment beside  he would  have earned  interest  on  that amount also.  He could  have utilized  that amount for other purposes. He  was denied  the same on account of the default of the  department.  The  appellant  in  his  reply  to  the statement of  account filed  by Shri Arya in, this Court has claimed almost 18 lakhs of rupees from the department out of which more  than Rs.  16 lakhs  have  been  claimed  towards interest and compensation etc.      After hearing  learned counsel  for the  parties    and discussing this  matter with  them and with a view to settle the equities  and do  Justice between  the parties,  in  the peculiar facts  and circumstances  of this case. We consider it appropriate  to direct  the respondent/Union  of India to pay to  the appellant  a sum of As two lacs (Rs. 2,00,000/-) towards interest, compensation, litigation expenses etc. for the amounts  wrongfully withheld from the appellant for more than 12 years. This amount would be in addition to the claim amount  already   paid  to   the  appellant   amounting   to

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Rs.19,551/- and  shall be  paid to the appellant in full and final settlement  of all  his claims  within two months from today. In  case the  amount is not paid within two months it shall bear  interest @  12% per  annum from The date of this order till  the payment  is made.  Keeping in view the agony through which  the appellant  has gone  through we hope that the Union  of India  shall not cause delay in making payment to the  appellant We  set aside  the order  of the  Tribunal dated 4th March, 1993 and dispose of the appeal in the above terms.