S.R. BHANRALE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 763 · Decided: 19-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

S.R. BHANRALE 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JULY 19, 1996 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, J.I.] 
B 
Service Law-Pension and retiral benejit,.._Long delay in pay-
nzent-Deprecation of-Departnzent of Telecon1n11tnications-Assistant 
Director General-Service of ~O ycars--Superannuation-Pay111ent of Pension 
made-Wrol!gful withholding of other retiral benefits ( Encashment of eamed C 
leave, increnient arrears, jpecial ]Jay due and LTC etc.)-Adnzinistrative 
T1ibwzal rejected employee's application but granted a lump sum interest of 
R>. 200 011 delayed payme11t of DCRG al!d GPF---Appeal-Bcfore Supreme 
Court claim opposed on the grou11d of limitation but ultimately Depwtment 
conceded the claim in part and paid after 12 years of retirement-Held it was D 
improper for the employer to plead limitation against claim of its employees 
when the Departn1ent itself had defaulted the payn1ent:-R.elief to 
employee-With a vie1v to settling the equities and do conzplete justice between 
the pa1ties--Goven11nent directed to pay ntpees two lakhs to e1111J!oyee towards 
interest, conzpensation and litigation expenses for lVrongful withholding of 
aniount-ln case the said aniount is not paid with_in two nionths, it shall bear E 
interest @ 12% per annum-Order of Tribunal set aside. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9489 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.3.93 of the Central Ad-
F 
minis\rative Tribunal, New Delhi in 0.A. No. 1302 of 1987. 
Ranjit Kumar for the Appellant. 
V.C. Mahajan, S.M.A. Qua<lri and C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
This is rather an unfortunate case. The appellant joined his service 
as an Engineering Supervisor in the year 1946. He served the department H 
763 
764 
SUPREME COUICf REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
in various capacities and superannuated un 3l~t July. 1984 when he was 
serving as an Officiating Assistant Director General (LTP). Department of 
rfeleco1nn1unjcation:-i. Govcrnn1ent of India, Nev; Delhi. An order for pay-
n1ent of pension \Va~ issued 011 24.8.1984 and the pension an1ount \Vas paid 
to him on l LJO. l9S4. The Union of lnJia which was under a statutory 
B obligation to scltlc and decide his retiral benefits and other claims by 31st 
July, 1984 failed to discharge tlH"c statutory obligations and his claims 
remained, unsettled. The appellant had to undergo tremendous hardship 
as his cJai1n for cnc<-1shmcnl of earned leave, increment arrears, special pay 
due, LTC etc. remained unsettled and his numerous representations to the 
department also evoked no response. The appellant thereafter served a 
C notice under Section 80 C.P.C. claiming his dues together with interest and 
con1pcnsation. Even that did not make the respondents n1ove. 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 
D India lo file the counter and meet the claims as set up by the appellant. 
No counter \Vas ho\vever, filed and the claim remained unrebutted. How-
ever, the Central Administrative Tribunal through the order impugned in 
this appeal rejected the application of the appellant and award a lump sum 
amount of "Rs. 200" by way of interest on delayed payment of death-cum-
retircmcnt gratuity and G.P.F. "as full compensation". The D.C.R.G. was 
E 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 in this Court denying the 
F claim and pleading that his claim to 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 grievan-
ces of the appellant as project 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 
G cook 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, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.