KC BIJORIA vs Bsnl on 15 October 2026

O R D E R

BY MALLIKA ARYA, AM:-

By filing this O.A., the applicant is not challenging any particular order but is claiming interest on delayed payment of gratuity, leave encashment and CGEGIS.

2. The facts of the case in brief is that the applicant was initially appointed as Junior Telecom officer (JTO) in the respondent department on 04.12.1971. He has retired from service as Divisional Engineer on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2006. The applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 02.11.2001. The applicant denied all the charges as alleged on him. However, full-fledged Departmental Enquiry was initiated against him and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect vide order dated 26.04.2004. Feeling aggrieved with the orders of disciplinary authority, the applicant preferred an appeal on 23.06.2004, which was decided vide order dated 18.11.2008 with an advice to initiate de-novo proceedings from the stage of inquiry. Since, denovo enquiry was not concluded even after a considerable time, the applicant filed O.A. No. 533/2012 with a limited prayer to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, during pendency of O.A. 533/2012, the disciplinary authority has exonerated the applicant from all the allegations vide order dated RAJUL NAMDE O

RAJ UL NAM DEO

28.09.2012 (Annexure A-1). After exoneration the applicant preferred series of representations to provide him all consequential benefits with effect from 28.02.2006. However, the same was paid to the applicant after a lapse of nearly about seven years without interest. When the interest on delayed payment has not been paid to the applicant, he preferred a representation dated 23.04.2013 (Annexure A-6). However, no heed was paid by the respondents towards the representation of the applicant. Hence this O.A.

3. Upon notice, the respondents have filed their reply wherein it has been submitted that the applicant retired on 28.02.2006 and filed the present O.A. in 2017 i.e. after a lapse of 11 years. There is no explanation for delay in filing this O.A. Apart from above, the department enquiry was going against the applicant and the applicant has been exonerated vide order dated 28.09.2012. Immediately thereafter the amount of gratuity, leave encashment, and CGEGIS have been paid and hence there is no delay.

4. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. We have also gone through the judgments advanced by the counsel for the applicant in support of his case.

5. In the present case, we will look into the aspect of limitation at the outset. The applicant retired from service in 2006 and got exonerated from charges in 2012. The applicant did not approach any court of law RAJUL NAMDE O

RAJ UL NAM DEO

and kept making representations to the respondents. He has filed this OA in 2017, without any application for condonation of delay.

6. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) deals with limitation for filing O.A. before this Tribunal, which reads as under:- “21. Limitation.- (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made; (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where- (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and (b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court. the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub- section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.”

RAJUL NAMDE O

RAJ UL NAM DEO

The aforesaid rule shows clear case of negligence on the part of applicant in approaching this Tribunal within a year of original cause of action and not a single reason and no sufficient cause shown in the application for condonation of delay in filing this OA.

7. In Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 685, Their Lordships held on the law of limitation as under: “….26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his action vigilantly.‖ [Emphasis supplied]

8. Secondly, even on the merits of case, the applicant was served with a charge sheet on 02.11.2001. During pendency of the inquiry proceedings, the applicant retired on 28.02.2006. The disciplinary proceeding against the applicant got dropped on 28.09.2012 and the respondents has paid Gratuity, Leave encashment, and CGEGIS, which has not been denied by the applicant. The issue which remains to be decided is whether the applicant is entitled for interest on delayed payment of the above retiral dues. RAJUL NAMDE O

RAJ UL NAM DEO

9. It is noted that the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the deceased applicant and during pendency of the said proceedings, the deceased applicant stood retired, therefore, the amount of his gratuity and leave encashment was withheld till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held in catena of judgments that no gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. Therefore, the order of withholding gratuity and leave encashment during pendency of disciplinary proceeding is proper hence, there was no case for the applicant to get it released till the pendency of the above proceedings.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman-cum- Managing Director vs. Sri Rabindranath Choubey, AIR 2020 SC 2978 has held as under:- “During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority may withhold payment of gratuity, for ordering the recovery from gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the company if have been guilty of offences/misconduct as mentioned in Sub Section (6) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or to have caused pecuniary loss to the company by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on deputation or on reemployment after retirement. However, the provisions of Section 7(3) and 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 should be kept in view in the event of delayed payment, in the case the employee is fully exonerated.” (Emphasis supplied)

10.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Veerabhadram vs. Govt. of A.P., (1999) 9 SCC 43 para 7 held as under:- RAJUL NAMDE O

RAJ UL NAM DEO

“7. The payment of gratuity was withheld, in the present case, since the criminal prosecution was pending against the appellant when he retired. Rule 52(c) of the A. P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 expressly permits the State to withhold gratuity during the pendency of any judicial proceedings against the employee. In the present case, apart from Rule 52(c), there was also an express order of the Tribunal which was binding on the appellant and the respondent under which the Tribunal had directed that death- cum-retirement gratuity was not to be paid to the appellant till the judicial proceedings were concluded and final orders were passed thereon. In view of this order as well as in view of Rule 52(c), it cannot be said that there was any illegal withholding of gratuity by the respondent in the case of the appellant. We therefore, do not see any reason to order payment of any interest on the amount of gratuity so withheld.”

11. From the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that after dropping of disciplinary proceedings all the retiral dues have been paid to the applicant immediately thereafter. Hence the question of paying interest does not arise.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion it becomes clear that there is no deliberate delay in making payment of aforesaid retiral dues nor any allegation of deliberate delay have been made in the O.A. Accordingly, we find no merit in the claim of the applicant and the OA deserves to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra) Administrative Member Judicial Member rajul RAJUL NAMDE O

RAJ UL NAM DEO