Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ishwar Singh vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited on 6 December, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A.No.2234/2014
Tuesday, this the 6th December 2016
Hon'ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Mr. Ishwar Singh, age 60
Cable Jointer (Retd.)
s/o late Tuhi Ram
r/o Village Shahzadpur
PO Sandhal Kalan
District Sonipat, Haryana
..Applicant
(Mr. Daleep Singh, Advocate)
Versus
1. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Janpath, New Delhi - 1
2. The Secretary
Ministry of Communication & Information Technology
Department of Communication, Govt. of India
Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road
New Delhi -1
..Respondents
(Ms. Leena Tuteja and Mr. Ishaan Chawla, Advocates for respondent No.1 -
Mr. A S Singh and Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocates for respondent No.2)
O R D E R (ORAL)
The applicant, through the medium of this O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has prayed for the following specific reliefs:
"(i) direct the respondent to release the withhold amount of subsistence allowance with interest till date from March-2004 to 14.7.2008.
(ii) pass such other or further order (s) as may deem fit and proper for ends of justice."
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
2
2.1 The applicant joined Department of Post & Telegraph in the year 1981 as Wireman and later on, after the creation of Telecommunication Department, he became part of it in the year 1992. In the year 1994, he came to be transferred to Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) (respondent No.1) on deputation basis. 2.2 On 12.08.1996, he was arrested in a criminal case vide FIR No.279 under Sections 148/302/149 IPC and registered in PS Sadar, Sonipat, Haryana, and consequently he was placed under deemed suspension. He was paid subsistence allowance from the date of his suspension, i.e., from 12.08.1996 to February 2004. He had also furnished a non-employment certificate for the said. He was finally convicted in the criminal case by the District & Sessions Judge, Sonipat on 06.05.1998. 2.3 The applicant thereafter, preferred criminal appeal before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court against his conviction and was released on bail on 20.08.2001. His appeal was later dismissed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on 15.02.2008, against which he preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which too came to be dismissed, as informed by the learned counsel for applicant himself.
Consequently, the applicant was dismissed from service by respondent No.2 on 14.07.2008.
3 The applicant claims that he has not been paid subsistence allowance from March 2004 to 14.07.2008 (date of dismissal) and in this O.A., has prayed for payment of the same. Learned counsel for applicant has also produced a copy of the Jail Custody Certificate issued by the Deputy 3 Superintendent, District Jail, Sonipat, which gives the following details about the applicant:
Sr. Particulars Period Years Months Days No.
1. Undertrial From 01 08 13 period 13.08.96 to 28.11.96 05.12.96 to 09.12.96 11.12.96 to 20.11.97 & 24.11.97 to 05.05.98
2. Conviction From 07 02 00 Period 06.05.98 to 06.09.01 & 25.04.08 to 23.02.12
3. Bail Period, if From..... to..... Nil Nil Nil any (-) Total Sentence = 08 10 13
4. Parole availed 42 weeks Parole 00 09 24 (-)
5. Detail of Nil Nil Nil Nil overstay/absent from Parole (-) Actual Sentence = 08 00 19 From the said Certificate, no details are emanating with regard to the status of the applicant from 23.03.2012 till the date of his dismissal from service by respondent No.2 on 14.07.2008.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the prayers primarily on the two grounds viz. (a) the O.A. is barred by limitation of time; and (b) the applicant did not submit non-employment certificate for the period from March 2004 to 14.07.2008 for claiming the subsistence allowance. Learned counsel for applicant, however, stated that the applicant, following his conviction, was taken into judicial custody and as 4 such he could not furnish the requisite non-employment certificate for the said period for claiming the subsistence allowance.
5. From the perusal of the records and more particularly the Jail Custody Certificate issued by the Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Sonipat, it is quite clear that the applicant was not in judicial custody after 23.02.2012 and as such he was very much in a position to file the required non-employment certificate for claiming the subsistence allowance. As such I am not convinced with the argument of learned counsel for applicant as to the inability of the applicant in filing the said certificate.
6. I, therefore, hold that this O.A. is barred by limitation of time and as such the reliefs prayed for cannot be granted. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
( K.N. Shrivastava ) Member (A) December 6, 2016 /sunil/