P G K Murthy vs DOORDARSHAN on 11 November 2026

O R D E R

PER:HON’BLEMR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief: “….to call for the records pertaining to the order No. C- 14012/7/2019-VIG dt. 05.12.2019 and order No. C-14012/3/2022- Vig dt. 25.10.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 1 issued dropping the disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant for declaring the Applicant is entitled for payment of interest, at the rate of 18% and to pass direction or order or orders and directions to the Respondent No. 4 and 5 to pay interest from the following date of superannuation till the date of actual payment for the period of the delay in the payment of the amounts of (i) Earned Leave Encashment Rs. 10,61,486/- (ii) Gratuity Rs. 16,67,537/- and (iii) Commutation pension Rs. 18,31,319/- totaling Rs. 45,60,342/- (Rupees forty-five lakh sixty thousand three hundred forty-two only) and to refund the amounts of the monthly commutation deducted from 01.12.2018 and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the case, in brief, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:

i. The Applicant retired from service as Programme Executive on 30.11.2018, having attained the age of superannuation. However, the 3rd Respondent communicated vide letter, dt.04.01.2019, to the 4th Respondent that provisional pension would be paid from the date of retirement of the applicant till the final order in the pending disciplinary proceedings is passed.

ii. Thereafter, the 3rd Respondent directed the 4th Respondent, vide Lr. bearing No. PG/1399/SIII/915, dt. 30.12.2022, to release the pensionary benefits to the applicant as the disciplinary proceedings against him had been dropped by the 1st Respondent.

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

iii. It is submitted that the 5th Respondent, while issuing the Pension Payment Order (PPO), specifically mentioned, at the top of the proceedings, dt.27.04.2023, that it was issued in accordance with the D.G., Doordarshan, New Delhi (3rd Respondent) file number PF/1399/SIII/915, dt.30.12.2022, “After Dropping Disciplinary Proceedings” against the applicant (Ann.R/4).

iv. The Applicant received the principal amounts in the month of March, 2023, from the 5th Respondent, without interest for the delay of 4 years, as follows;

i) Earned Leave Encashment

: Rs. 10,61,486/-

ii) Gratuity

: Rs. 16,67,537/-

iii) Commutation pension

: Rs. 18,31,319/-

Total Rs. 45,60,342/- v. It is contended that, in the light of the above fact, Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 ought to have considered payment of interest for the delayed period of 4 years, from the date of retirement of the Applicant, in respect of the above-mentioned pensionary benefits which were released upon dropping of the disciplinary proceedings by the competent authority, viz., R1.

vi. It is submitted that Respondent No. 4 has deliberately misinterpreted the actual and real decision of Respondent No.1 that was emphasized by the 5th Respondent at the top of its proceedings, dt.27.04.2023, stating that the Pension Payment Order (PPO) was issued to the Applicant on the order of the DG, Doordarshan, New Delhi (3rd Respondent) dropping the disciplinary proceedings against him. Therefore, the reason given by Respondent No. 4, for rejecting the

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

payment of interest that the Applicant was not fully exonerated from the charges is illogical and irrational and it can be considered as defiance of the order of the President. It is further submitted that the charges against the Applicant had been dropped by the President, after perusing the material relating to the disciplinary proceedings, and, therefore, the question of not fully exonerating the Applicant does not arise since dropping of the proceedings means that the Applicant has retired as if no disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him. Since the charges levelled against him are dropped, R4 cannot deprive the Applicant of his lawful right to receipt of the interest for the delay in payment of the pensionary benefits which fell due on the retirement of the Applicant.

vii. It is submitted that Rule 62 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, addresses the issue of payment of interest on delayed pension and gratuity payments to retired government employees, specifically those retiring on superannuation. It mandates that interest be paid on delayed payment of the principal amounts of pension and gratuity, at a rate equivalent to that applicable to GPF deposits, which is compounded annually. This interest is payable for the period of delay, starting from the date on which the payment was due until the actual date of payment. In the given case, the Head of the Office is not required to report the matter to the next higher authority, for fixing responsibility for the delay in payment of the retiral benefits to the Applicant, because of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant. No individual is responsible for the delay in payment of the retiral

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

benefits to the Applicant. The decision was made by the President, in public interest, dropping the charges against the Applicant.

viii. The right to receive interest for delayed pensionary benefits is tied to the original principal amounts. It is a continuous cause of action as the 5th Respondent issued proceedings, dt. 13.02.2023, informing the 4th Respondent that Rs. 18,31,319 (commuted value of pension), was paid on 23.03.2023 and fixed the recovery of the monthly pension of commutation Rs.19,740 upto the date 23.03.2038, otherwise it would have been 01.12.2033. Rule 6 of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, specifies that deduction of monthly commuted pension becomes effective from the date of issuance of Pension Payment Order, i.e., 27.04.2023, in the case of the applicant.

ix. A lump sum amount was deducted for four years of commutation of monthly pension, though it was delayed for 4 (four) years. In fact, the commutation pension was received for a value of 11 years by the Applicant from Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, after dropping of the disciplinary proceedings. The retroactive deductions negate the benefit of commuted pension value for 15 years. When the pension payment order is issued after four years, the deductions of monthly commuted pension ought to have started from the date of release of the commuted pension. The Applicant requests for considering the deduction of prospective monthly commuted pension from the date of releasing the commuted pension amount for 15 years. x. The applicant submits that the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, in its order, dt.08.01.2025, in O.A.No.1139/2023, held that-

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

"The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad V. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330 authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon on the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. The right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any order of the authority but by virtue of statutory Rules."

xi. It is further submitted that the 4th Respondent issued a sanction order, dt.15.02.2023, granting the amount of Rs.10,61,486, equivalent to 292 days of EL and 378 days of HPL, without any interest on the amount for the delayed period. R5 issued proceedings, dt.13.02.2023, informing R4 to prepare a bill for an amount of Rs.18,31,319 as commuted value of pension, fixing the commuted portion of monthly pension Rs.19,740. Vide proceedings, dt.06.02.2023, R5 informed R4 for presentation of bill to arrange the Gratuity amount of Rs. 16,67,537, without mentioning about payment of interest for the delayed period. xii. R4 was informed, vide proceedings, dt. 27.04.2023, by R5, regarding the applicant's superannuation pension as Rs.49,350. The applicant was paid provisional pension from 01.12.2018 to 31.12.2023.

xiii. It is pleaded that the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has, in several cases, ordered payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits, including pension, gratuity and other retiral dues. In one case, the Hon'ble Court directed the Respondents to settle the retirement benefits along with interest at 9%, per annum, from the date of retirement until the date of disbursement.

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

xiv. It is contended that the cause of action by way of non-payment of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits to the applicant has been continuing from month to month and such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Haresh C. Banerjee and Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 651 has recognized that the right to property no longer remained a fundamental right, it was still a Constitutional Right, as provided in Article 300A of the Constitution. xv. In its order, dt.08.01.2025, in O.A.No.1139/2023, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, at New Delhi, held as follows: “Except for the amount of Gratuity, the Respondent is directed to pay interest on the retiral dues of the Applicant paid with delay at the rate of 18% from the date of superannuation till the date of actual payment within 12 weeks from the date of certified copy of this order.”

xvi. According to the applicant, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are not competent to reject his claim for payment of interest. The impugned proceedings are issued without jurisdiction and in defiance of the order passed by Respondent No. 1. Hence, the impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside being legally invalid.

3. On notice, Respondents have filed their reply statement, wherein they have averred as follows:

i. The Applicant. Sri P.G.K. Murthy, retired from service as Programme Executive, from the Doordarshan Kendra, Vijayawada, on superannuation, on 30.11.2018. At the time of his retirement, disciplinary proceedings, initiated by the Prasar Bharati, were pending against him.

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

ii. As per the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (as amended in 2021), only provisional pension was sanctioned and other retiral benefits, including gratuity, commutation of pension, and leave encashment were withheld pending conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. However, CGEGIS benefit of Rs.56,343 was paid on 18.12.2018. Subsequently, the said disciplinary proceedings were dropped by the Hon'ble President of India, and Vigilance Certificate was received by R4 through DG, Doordarshan, communication, dt.30.12.2022. Based on the said clearance and the Vigilance Certificate, R4 processed the applicant's pension case and forwarded authorization under Bhavishya to the PAO, DDK, Chennai/5th Respondent. The 5th Respondent returned the pension papers in Bhavishya, vide their letter, dt.07.06.2023, and advised to carry out certain corrections and submit the pension papers in the offline mode. Accordingly, the pension papers were resubmitted by R4 to the PAO, DDK, Chennai, manually. Thereafter, PPO No. 2866023300337, dt.27.04.2023, was issued to the applicant. However, retiral dues were released by R5 to the Applicant in March, 2023, itself, totalling ₹45,60,342/-, comprising: Earned Leave Encashment: ₹10,61,486/- Gratuity: 16,67,537/- Commuted Pension: 18,31,319/-

On 05.10.2023, the applicant submitted a representation claiming interest on pensionary benefits and the difference of the commutation value of pension.

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

iii. Payment of leave encashment is not governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules. For payment of leave encashment, Rule 39 of the CCS(Leave) Rules, 1972, is applicable and Sub-rules 2(a) and 3 of Rule 39 are as under:

(2) (a) Where a Government servant retires on attaining the normal age prescribed for retirement under the terms and conditions governing his service, the authority competent to grant leave shall, suo motu, issue an order granting cash equivalent of leave salary for both earned leave and half pay leave, if any, at the credit of the Government servant on the date of his retirement subject to a maximum of 300 days;

(3) The authority competent to grant leave may withhold whole or part of cash equivalent of earned leave in the case of a Government servant who retires from service on attaining the age of retirement while under suspension or while disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against him, if in the view of such authority there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against him on conclusion of the proceedings, he will become eligible to the amount so withheld after adjustment of Government dues, if any.

iv. The Directorate General, Doordarshan/R3, vide communication, dt.24.01.2024, informed that interest shall not be payable in cases where delay in settlement is due to pendency of departmental or judicial proceedings at the time of retirement. v. On finalization of disciplinary proceedings, leave encashment was sanctioned and payment was made to the applicant. In addition, it is submitted that, in cases where the commuted value of pension is paid after retirement, the deduction of the amount of commuted pension, from the monthly pension, becomes operative from the date on which the commuted value of pension is paid. Since the pensioner continues

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

to receive full pension till the date of payment of commuted value of pension, the question of payment of any interest on delayed payment of commutation of pension does not arise. vi. It is submitted that the impugned communication, dt.25.03.2025, issued by R4, was issued in pursuance of the rule position, clarifying non-entitlement to interest due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings at the time of superannuation. R4 has acted only as the Head of the Office for implementation of rules and directions from superior authorities and could not exercise any discretion or take an independent decision on the question of interest payment. vii. The non-payment of interest is strictly in accordance with the extant rules, specifically Rule 65(5)(d) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 (Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972), which clarifies that interest on delayed payment of pension and gratuity is not admissible in cases where disciplinary proceedings were pending at the time of retirement.

viii. Further, as per Rule 13(1)(b) of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, the commutation factor was applied on the age at next birthday, after submission of Form-I, which was possible only after disciplinary clearance and, hence, deductions commenced only after issuance of the PPO on 27.04.2023. ix. According to the Respondents, reference to orders of the Hon'ble High Court is irrelevant as each case is decided on its own facts. It is acknowledged that the Applicant is a senior citizen, however, the action taken was in accordance with rules, as dropping of charges

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

does not amount to full exoneration. Interest is admissible only in cases of complete exoneration and administrative lapse. Hence, The Applicant is not entitled to interest. It is submitted that the OA is liable to be dismissed, as devoid of merits, with costs.

4. Heard both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

5. The main issues pertain to demand for interest on payment of retiral benefits and refund of the amount of monthly commutation deducted from 01.12.2018. Respondents have asserted that, in view of the pendency of departmental proceedings at the time of superannuation, no interest was admissible on the amounts paid in March, 2023, towards retiral benefits, comprising Leave encashment, Gratuity and Commuted Pension. Admittedly, when the applicant attained the age of superannuation, on 30.11.2018, because of the pending disciplinary proceedings, only provisional pension was sanctioned to him. Subsequently, the said proceedings were dropped, vide orders, dt.25.10.2022, of the MIB, as per letter, dt.30.12.2022 of the Directorate General, Doordarshan. Respondents have taken the plea that interest is admissible only in cases of complete exoneration and administrative lapse. However, nothing has been placed before us to support the claim of the Respondents that the charge sheet against the applicant was dropped, even though he was not exonerated completely. Further, principles of natural justice require that the applicant/C.O. be informed of the ground for not being exonerated completely, and providing him opportunity to contest such a decision as it has an adverse impact on his retiral benefits, by denying him interest on the delayed payment of the same.

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

6. When the charges are dropped, there is no question of partial or complete exoneration from the allegations. Once the charge sheet is dropped, nothing remains to be proved against the charged officer. Thus, it is not feasible to contemplate a situation where the employee has no charges/allegations against him and yet he is not fully exonerated! Such a submission is totally contradictory in terms of the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in WP.No.1918/2025 (Maheshwari Shanmugam Pillay vs. Union of India & Anr.) wherein it was held that –

“9. Thus, from a bare perusal of the order dated 09.05.2023, it is evident that the order imposing penalty dated 30.09.2008 and the rejection order dated 09.01.2013 were set aside on the ground of procedural irregularities. The said orders being set aside, S.M. Pillay would have to be treated as having retired on 31.01.2007 with a clean slate, consequently, being entitled to his retiral benefits, pension, etc. on the date of his retirement. The said payments were withheld on account of the pending disciplinary proceedings. In view of the exoneration of S.M. Pillay in the disciplinary proceedings, the Petitioner would be entitled to interest on the delayed payment. Retirement benefits being due to him w.e.f. the date of his retirement, the delay in payment would have to be considered from 31.01.2007.

10. With reference to the contention of the learned Advocate for the Respondents that the proceedings filed by S.M. Pillay against the penalty order being abated, consequently Petitioner not being entitled to interest, will have to be rejected in view of the specific observation in the order dated 09.05.2023 which has set aside the penalty order on the ground of procedural irregularity. Mere observation that the proceedings stood abated would not come to the aid of the Respondent No.2 to deny Petitioner interest on delayed payments of the retiral benefits payable to S.M. Pillay. This is more so on account the fact that his retiral dues were withheld on account of the pending disciplinary proceedings.

11. S.M. Pillay retired from service on 31.01.2007 upon attaining the age of superannuation. Though S.M. Pillay was placed on the suspension on 22.01.2007, he was served with the charge memo on 05.02.2007. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings is not initiated merely by issuance of show cause notice, it is initiated only when charge-sheet is issued (see Union of India & Others versus K.V. Jankiraman'). Mr. Bhaskar Reddy, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the said Rules do not contem-plate disciplinary proceedings after retirement of the employees. Mr. Tushad Kakalia, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 was unable to point out any provision in the said Rules which would enable the Respondent No.2 to initiate or continue proceedings upon the retirement of its employees. This is an additional ground to hold that S.M. Pillay was denied his retirement dues, upon his retirement.

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

12. Upon exoneration of S.M. Pillay, the period of suspension Petitioner i.e. 22.01.2007 to 31.01.2007 would have to be considered on duty and consequently, he would be entitled to his full pay during the said period, less the subsistence allowance paid during the said period. The said amount shall be paid within two weeks from today along with interest @ 6% on the said amount payable from 31.01.2007 till actual payment.

13. Petitioner has made a grievance of a portion/part/balance of the gratu-ity amount not being paid. The Respondent No.2 is directed to calculate the gratuity amount payable to S.M. Pillay and if any amount is due and from today along with interest @10% per annum on the said amount, in terms of the notification dated 01.10.1987 issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India and in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gagan Bihari Prusty versus Paradip Port Trust & Others', wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that interest would be payable as per the notification issued by the Central Government, without having any excuse.

14. The Writ Petition is allowed. Petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum under the following head for the following period:

(a) Family pension amount for the period from 28.02.2007 till 12.10.2023.

(b) Encashment of Earned Leave for the period from 31.01.2007 till 03.05.2016.

(c) Interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the delayed payment of gratuity.”

7. Thus, the basic issue is no longer res integra. The applicant has to be treated as having retired on the due date of superannuation, i.e., 30.11.2018, with “a clean slate”, as per the Bombay High Court order supra. Interest shall be payable to him on retirement gratuity and arrears of pension, as contemplated under Rule 65(5)(C) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. By the same logic, there are no grounds to penalize the applicant under Rule 39(2)a & (3) of the CCS(Leave) Rules, 1972, either. He is entitled to interest as per GPF rules for the period of delay, from the due date till the date of payment of the due amounts.

8. Coming to the issues involved in the payment/recovery of the commuted portion of the pension, the submission of the applicant in the OA, as follows, is worth taking note of –

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

“9. It is respectfully submitted that releasing commuted pension after four years with retrospective deductions for the past period of four years is unfairly implemented after the dropping of disciplinary charges. When the pension payment order is issued after four years, the deductions of the monthly commuted pension ought to have started from the date of release of the commuted pension. The retroactive deductions negate the benefit of commuted pension value for 15 years because of the timing of deduction of the monthly commuted pension is incompatible and aggressive against the purpose of the commuted pension for 15 years. The Applicant being a pensioner effectively suffered from the situation even after dropping charges. The retroactive deductions of commuted pension for four years actually and really caused significant financial strain on the Applicant who have already adjusted his spending based on the receipt of the commuted pension value for 15 years. The Applicant submits for considering the deduction of prospective monthly commuted pension from the date of releasing the commuted pension amount for 15 years.”

9. In the counter, Respondents have replied to the submissions of the applicant regarding the commutation, as follows – “……it is submitted that in cases where the commuted value of pension is paid after retirement, the reduction of the amount of commuted pension from the monthly pension becomes operative from the date on which the commuted value of pensions paid, since the pensioner continues to receive full pension till the date of payment of commuted value of pension the question of payment of any interest on delayed payment of commutation of pension does not arise.”

Further –

“PARAWISE COMMENTS –

x x x x

“Para 6 to 9: The prayer for interest is not admissible under the rules. The communication dated 25.03.2025 was issued under direction of the competent authority. The Respondent No. 4 acted within the scope of official responsibility without exercising discretion and as such, the OA is liable to be dismissed.”

10. The argument of the Respondents does not answer the objections raised by the applicant. No ground for such an anomaly has been presented, as recovery is made for the 4 year period, even prior to release of the amount for the commuted portion of the pension. No intimation/notice has been issued to the

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

applicant before effecting such a recovery. It is very much like putting the cart before the horse. Vague reference is made to Rule 13(1) (b) of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, without any valid justification for recovery for the period prior to the order, dt.13.03.2023 (Ann.R4). The order in this regard reads as follows- “Sub: Payment of Commutation of Pension to Sh./Smt. Panthagani Gopala Krishna Murthy retired on 30/11/2018)

x x x x

As such a sum of Rs. 18,31,319/- (RUPEES EIGHTEEN LAKH THIRTY ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED NINETEEN ONLY) being commuted value of pension is payable to Sh./Smt. PANTHAGANI GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY

Accordingly you are requested to arrange payment of Rs.18,31,319/- (RUPEES EIGHTEEN LAKH THIRTY ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED NINETEEN ONLY) to Sh/Smt. PANTHAGANI GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY by presenting bill to this office.

The disbursement shall be made in terms of rules and a certificate of disbursement may be sent alongwith the actual date of payment of this amount.

Sh/Smt. PANTHAGANI GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY shall be entitled to a reduced pension of Rs.29,610/- (RUPEES TWENTY NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TEN ONLY) after commutation.

The commuted portion of pension may be restored to the pensioner on completion of 15 years of commencement of reduced monthly pension after commutation.”

11. Admittedly, the commuted value of pension has been sanctioned to the applicant on 13.03.2023, and disbursement was made, thereafter. As a result of commutation, reduced pension was paid to the applicant. The commuted portion of pension would “be restored on completion of 15 years of commencement of reduced monthly pension after commutation”. Thus, recovery made in respect of commutation is arbitrary and contrary to the terms, incorporated in the above sanction order. Respondents shall immediately refund the amount recovered out of the commuted value of

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

pension. Recovery can be made only by way of reduced monthly pension, after the commutation has come into effect.

12. In the light of the above discussion, we find that the applicant has made out a cogent case in his favour. The OA is, therefore, allowed in the above terms. All the consequential benefits shall be extended to the applicant, within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.

(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi)

(Manish Garg) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

11.11.2026

/ps/

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA