Interest on delayed retiral dues depends on non-attributability of delay to employee.

The applicant, Debabrata Ray, an Indian Forest Service Officer, retired on April 30, 2015, and was sanctioned provisional pension from May 1, 2015.

His full pension, gratuity, and leave encashment were withheld due to disciplinary proceedings initiated on November 25, 2011.

The applicant challenged these proceedings in OA No. 191/2013, where the Bench quashed the charge sheet on September 12, 2019, due to delay and laches.

The State of Odisha challenged this order before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 13191/2020, which dismissed the writ petition on June 13, 2021, upholding the Bench's order.

In compliance with the order, the Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change issued an order on October 5, 2021, dropping the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, communicated on October 28, 2021.

Subsequently, on December 28, 2021, the applicant was notionally promoted to Conservator of Forest in IFS with effect from July 26, 2013, and his pay was notionally fixed.

Pension papers were received on February 28, 2022, and final pension and arrears were sanctioned on March 14, 2022, and credited on May 12, 2022.

The value of unutilized earned leave was sanctioned on August 23, 2022, and credited on August 24, 2022.

The applicant contended that the State Government lacked authority to withhold his retirement dues and was entitled to interest on the delayed payment.

The respondents argued that the dues were rightly withheld pending disciplinary proceedings and that all dues had been released following the High Court's order.

They also contended that the applicant had not made a prior representation to the authorities regarding interest, making his request barred by Section 20 of the AT Act, 1985.

1. Whether the State Government had the authority to withhold the retirement dues of an Indian Forest Service Officer during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of retirement dues, considering the disciplinary proceedings were quashed and the dues were subsequently released?

3. Whether the applicant's request for interest on delayed payment is barred under Section 20 of the AT Act, 1985, due to the non-submission of a prior representation to the concerned authorities?

The court considered Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 6 of the All India Service (Death-Cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958, which states that only the Central Government is competent to withhold pension and gratuity of an AIS Officer if a disciplinary or criminal case is pending at the time of retirement.

The court also referred to Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which mandates that an employee must exhaust the remedy of making a representation to the concerned authorities before approaching the Tribunal for relief.

The principle that the government is liable to pay interest on delayed payment of retiral dues, provided the delay is not attributable to the employee, was also implicitly considered.

The Bench expressed difficulty in accepting the applicant's contention that the State lacked authority to withhold retirement dues of an AIS officer posted to State duty where disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending.

The court noted that the retirement dues were withheld due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, and payment was made after the Bench's order quashing the proceedings was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court.

Crucially, the court emphasized the mandate of Section 20 of the AT Act, 1985, which requires an employee to first make a representation to the authorities for redressal of grievances.

This step allows the authorities to address the issue and, if denied, provides grounds for judicial review.

The applicant had not made such a representation regarding the payment of interest on delayed dues.

Therefore, the court found it just and proper to grant the applicant the liberty to make a representation to the appropriate authority regarding the interest payment.

The authority was directed to examine the matter with reference to the rules.

If the applicant is found entitled to interest, it must be paid within 90 days from the date of receipt of the representation.

If the request is denied, a reasoned and speaking order must be communicated within the same period.

The parties were directed to bear their own costs.