- (1.) The erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal") allowed the prayer of the respondent/original writ petitioner by directing the State to 'release withheld amount of leave encashment, gratuity and pension with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of voluntary retirement till payment, except the gratuity, on which the interest was to be payable after three months from the retirement'. Aggrieved, State has challenged the decision of the Tribunal by means of instant writ petition.
(2.) Facts :- For convenience, the parties hereinafter are being referred to as they were before the Tribunal. 2(i) Writ petitioner was regularized as Helper on 01.04.1998 on completion of 10 years of service as daily wager. 2(ii) It appears from the record that a complaint was made in respect of petitioner's furnishing his false date of birth to the employer. A preliminary inquiry was conducted in the matter. In the preliminary inquiry report dated 16.12.2008, it was found that the birth certificate, furnished by the petitioner to the employer projecting his date of birth as 27.11.1952, was false. The report ascertained the actual date of petitioner's birth as 14.07.1946 certified on the basis of contemporary school record. While the inquiry proceeding was going on, petitioner, apparently in order to evade the penalty, sent a notice to the employer on 13.03.2009 seeking voluntary retirement. Even thereafter, petitioner was afforded an opportunity to explain his position regarding his correct date of birth. Petitioner, however, could not satisfy the competent authority about his correct date of birth and, therefore, in such circumstances expressed his willingness to retire from service citing domestic reasons. Resultantly, taking a lenient view, Office Order was issued on 31.03.2009 retiring him from service with immediate effect. 2(iii) Trying to take advantage of the Office Order, dated 31.03.2009 retiring the petitioner with immediate effect, CWP No. 7545 of 2010 was preferred by him with the following prayer :- "(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits i.e. GPF, Leave encashment, gratuity and commuted pension alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 31.03.2009 till its payment for which the petitioner humbly prays." This writ petition was decided on 12.05.2011. Respondents were directed to take steps for finalizing the proceedings and for disbursing the due, admissible and eligible retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of one month. 2(iv) It is not in dispute that the respondents thereafter released the benefits which, according to them, were due and admissible to the petitioner by taking his date of retirement as 31.07.2006. Still not satisfied, the petitioner preferred CWP No. 7996 of 2013 with the following main prayer :- "(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to release the withhold retiral benefits i.e. remaining amount of Leave Encashment i.e. Rs. 13,083/-, Gratuity and commuted pension alongwith entire arrears as well as to pay the interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 01.04.2009 till its realization, besides directing the respondents to pay the interest @ 12% per annum on the amount already paid to the petitioner i.e. GPF and part payment of leave encashment from 01.04.2009 till its actual payment made to the petitioner for which the petitioner humbly prays." This writ petition was allowed by the learned Tribunal as CWP(TA) No. 1957 of 2015, vide impugned judgment, dated 17.05.2016. The operative part of the judgment reads as under ;- "6. In view of the above, the transferred application is allowed and the respondents are directed to release withheld amount of leave encashment, gratuity and pension, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of voluntary retirement till payment except the gratuity on which the interest shall be payable after three months of the retirement." Aggrieved, the State has preferred instant writ petition on the ground that all due and admissible benefits stand released to the petitioner by taking his date of retirement as 31.07.2006 and nothing more is due towards him.
(3.) Observations :- 3(i) The record shows that during the pendency of CWP No. 7545 of 2010, the respondents had issued an Office Order on 22.02.2011 in supersession to order dated 31.03.2009, reflecting the date of retirement of the petitioner as 31.07.2006. This date of retirement of the petitioner was in tune with his correct date of birth i.e. 14.07.1946. 3(ii) It is also seen from the record that after the disposal of CWP No. 7545 of 2010, petitioner had himself given an undertaking to the respondents on 23.06.2011 that he be treated as retired from service w.e.f. 31.07.2006 and his financial benefits be also determined accordingly. He had further stated therein that he accepts his date of birth as 14.07.1946. The order, dated 22.02.2011 as well as the undertaking/consent/request letter of the petitioner dated 23.06.2011 have not been disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, the date of retirement of the petitioner has to be taken as 31.07.2006 and his date of birth as 14.07.1946. Learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute these facts. In the aforesaid backdrop, the impugned judgment passed by learned Tribunal directing the appellant to release retiral benefits to the petitioner by taking his date of retirement as 31.07.2006, therefore, becomes unsustainable. ;