UNION OF INDIA
A
v.
SHRI UJAGAR LAL
OCTOBER 7, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.P. PAITANAIK, JJ.]
B
Service Law :
Retiral Benefits-Death-cum-retirement gratuity-Delay in payment
of-Claim for interest-Circular issued by Railway Board directing not to C
make the payment till the retired employee surrenders possession of Railway .
accommodation-Held, the delay in payment was not due to any administra-
tive lapse-171e retired employee is not entitled to interest.
Raj Pal Wahi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., SLP (C) Nos. 7688-91/88
decided on 27.11.1989, relied on.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13220 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.90 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1383 of 1990.
E
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.
F
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-cum-
retirement 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 occupa-
tion of the quarter allotted to him and, therefore, he was not paid death-
H
227
228
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
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 sur-
renders 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.
,,
Lex