Delayed retiral benefits must be released with 6% interest when administrative delay is not attributable to the employee.

The applicant, a Senior Technician in the Southern Railways, retired on 28 February 2023 after serving from 6 May 1987 and receiving successive promotions.

His pension and other retiral benefits, including issuance of a Retired Employees Liberalized Health Scheme (RELHS) card, were not settled for more than 11 months after retirement.

The respondents attributed the delay to the applicant’s Ex-India Leave from 4 January 2000 to 31 December 2005, which allegedly required personal sanction of the General Manager because it exceeded five years.

The applicant contended that the leave had been sanctioned by the Railway authorities, that he had resumed duty thereafter, and that he had continued in service for approximately 18 years without objection, receiving further promotions during that period.

In an earlier proceeding, O.A. No. 249/2024, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider his representation and pass a reasoned order.

The respondents subsequently issued the impugned order dated 29 August 2024.

During the present proceedings, the General Manager’s sanction was obtained, the applicant’s service particulars were vetted, and Pension Payment Order No. 20237061400373 was issued; the remaining retiral benefits were stated to be under process.

Whether the respondents could continue withholding the applicant’s pension and other retiral benefits on account of the delayed regularisation of Ex-India Leave taken from 4 January 2000 to 31 December 2005, despite his having resumed duty and served for nearly 18 years thereafter without objection?

Whether the applicant was entitled to release of his admissible retiral and consequential monetary benefits, with interest, when the delay in regularising the leave and processing his retirement benefits was not attributable to him?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the applicable Railway Leave Rules requiring the prescribed sanction, including the General Manager’s sanction where leave exceeding five years was involved.

The Tribunal further applied the principles that an employee should not suffer for an administrative or procedural lapse not attributable to him, particularly where the authorities permitted the employee to resume service, continued to treat him as a regular employee, granted promotions, and allowed him to retire.

Retiral benefits, once due, must be processed and released expeditiously, and unexplained delay in payment may justify award of interest.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s Ex-India Leave had ultimately been regularised by the competent authority and that his pension had thereafter been sanctioned.

The alleged defect concerned the respondents’ failure to obtain the required higher sanction in time, rather than any fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the applicant.

Since the Railways had accepted his return to duty, retained him in service for nearly 18 years, granted him promotions, and permitted his retirement, the applicant could not be subjected to continuing deprivation of pensionary benefits because of the authorities’ delayed administrative action.

Although the PPO had been issued, the remaining admissible benefits were still pending; therefore, the Tribunal directed their expeditious release and awarded interest for the period of delay.

The respondents were directed to expedite the remaining process and release all admissible retiral and consequential monetary benefits in accordance with the applicable Railway Rules.

They were also directed to pay interest at 6% per annum on the delayed retiral and consequential monetary benefits, calculated from the date each amount became due until actual payment.

The Original Application was disposed of on these terms, with no order as to costs.