Vipin Sanghi, J. - (1.) The limited issue on which notice was issued by us in this petition was with regard to the relief of costs and interests from the date of retirement of the respondent i.e. 31.01.1993, on the retiral dues, till payment is awarded to the respondent.
(2.) In our order dated 25.04.2017, we have noticed the relevant facts and we consider it appropriate to reproduce the relevant extract from the said order, which reads as follows: "1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.09.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench) in O.A.4064/2014. The tribunal vide the impugned order allowed the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Delhi Transport Corporation Pensions Scheme, 1992. The tribunal has directed payment of arrears of pension to the respondent along with interest from the date it become due till the date of payment. The tribunal has also awarded cost of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent/applicant. The pension was initially denied to the respondent on the ground that he took voluntary retirement on 31.01.1993 - when he completed 9 years, 10 months and 9 days service. To be eligible for drawing pension, he should have rendered minimum 10 years of service. 2. Pertinently, when the petitioner sought to release the Contributory Provident Fund to the respondent, the said amount was not accepted by the respondent/applicant. 3. The respondent learnt of the circular dated 03.06.2004 issued by the petitioner, which clarified the position with respect to applicability of Rule 49 (3) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The circular clarified that qualifying service of nine years, nine months and above will be rounded of to 10 years for the purpose of grant of pension under Section 49 (2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 4. Upon learning of the said clarification, the respondent initially approached the tribunal by filing O.A.2406/2009. Eventually, he filed the aforesaid O.A.No.4064/2014, which has been allowed by the Tribunal. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the circular of 03.06.2004 could not be given retrospective effect from the year 1993, when the respondent took voluntary retirement. We do not find merit in this submission of the petitioner. A perusal of the circular dated 03.06.2004 shows that it merely seeks to clarify the position with regard to the application of manner of calculation of the qualifying service for determining the eligibility of the Government Servant to proportionate pension. To appreciate the position, we may set out the relevant extract from Rule 49 and the Circular dated 03.06.2004. Rule 49, in so far as it is relevant reads as follows: "49 Amount of Pension (1) In the case of Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of ten year, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half month's emoluments for every completed six monthly period of qualifying service. (1-A) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing the qualifying service of not less than ten years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him, subject to a minimum of three thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem and a maximum of forty-five thousand rupees per mensem. (2A) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (3) In calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated as a completed one half-year and reckoned as qualifying service. (4) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 6. The circular of 03.06.2004 reads as follows: JUDGEMENT_118_LAWS(DLH)2_2019_1.html 7. That being the position, we are not inclined to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the said circular would not apply to the case of the respondent, since the respondent retired in 1993. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the original application filed in 2009 was barred by limitation, since the respondent had retired in the year 1993 and the O.A. was filed in 2009. 9. We cannot agree with this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the right to receive pension is a continuing right, and cause of action is a continuing cause of action. 10. The challenge to the impugned order on merits is therefore rejected. However, considering the fact that the respondent had approached the tribunal initially in the year 2009 vide O.A.2406/2009, we are inclined to issue notice to the respondent to consider the aspect of entitlement for interest prior to the said period, and also the aspect of costs imposed upon the petitioner. 11. Limited the aforesaid aspect, issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 11.08.2017."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had first approached the Central Administrative Tribunal vide OA No.2406/2009 which was disposed of on 31.08.2009, directing the petitioner to treat the said Original Application as the respondent's representation and to pass a speaking order within two months with regard to claim of his pension while taking into account the orders of the Government of India dated 03.06.2004 and the letter of the DTC dated 23.01.2008. Learned counsel submits that post the said order, the petitioner passed a reasoned order on 28.12.2009 denying the claim of the respondent for pension. Only thereafter, the respondent preferred the Original Application in the year 2014 which has been allowed by the impugned order. Learned counsel submits that in the light of the aforesaid, the grant of interest on the arrears of pension from 1993 onwards was not justified. She places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. Tarsem Singh, 2008 8 SCC 648. In this case, the respondent had claimed that he was entitled to disability pension since 13.11.1983. He approached the High Court only in the year 1999 to claim disability pension. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 06.12.2000 with a direction to pay the arrears of disability pension for 38 months prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. He was dissatisfied with denial of the disability pension from 13.11.1983 and, therefore, preferred a Letters Patent Appeal which was allowed by the Division Bench on 06.12.2006. The order was further modified on 23.02.2007. As a result of those orders, he was held to be entitled to arrears of disability pension from 13.11.1983 and on the arrears he was held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum.;