⚖️ Legal Sandook Supreme Court judgments

Supreme Court of India

Union of India v. Shri Ujagar Lal

[1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 2271996 INSC 1154(1996) 11 SCC 116
Decided07-10-1996
BenchK. Ramaswamy
Case typeSpecial Leave Petition
ResultAppeal(s) allowed
CNRESCR010011971996
Open the judgment (PDF)

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13220 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.90 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1383 of 1990. P.P. Malhotra and B.K. Prasad for the Appellant. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Though notice was sent to the respondent on May 8, 1992, till date neither the acknowledgment card nor unserved notice has been received back. Under those circumstances, notice must be deemed to have served. Leave granted. The only question argued in this appeal is: whether the respondent G is entitled to the payment of interest for failure to released the death-cumretirement gratuity under the rules? The Tribunal in the impugned order made on 22.11.1990 in O.A. No. 1383/90 directed interest@ 7% per annum for the first twelve months and @10% per annum for the period thereafter.

The admitted position is that the respondent was unauthorisedly in occupation of the quarter allotted to him and, therefore, he was not paid death- A cum-retirement gratuity since the respondent had remained in possession unauthorisedly for more than two years. This question was considered by this Court in Raj Pal Wahi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., SLP (C) Nos. 7688-91/88 decided on 27.11.1989 and held that in those circ~·mstances, the Court unable to hold that the petitioners are entitled to get interest for the B delayed payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity as the delay in payment occurred due to the order passed on the basis of the said circular of Railway Board and not on account of administrative lapse.

In this case, in view of the circular issued by the administration directing not to make payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity till the retired employee surrenders possession, the delay in payment was not due to any administrative C lapse but on account of the circular issued by the Board. Under these circumstances, the respondent is not entitled to the interest as directed by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. D R.P. Appeal allowed.