Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jai Parkash vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 29 May, 2025
Item No. 59 (Court-V) O.A. No.2069/2018
sp
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2069/ 2018
Reserved on: 26.05.2025
Pronounced on: 29.05.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Jai Parkash, Conductor, GHD, B.No.13534, S/o
Sh. Anand Parkash, R/o RZ-A-67,
RZ 67, Jaffarpur
Extension , Jaffarpur Kalan, New Delhi
Delhi-110073.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Nil Mittal)
Versus
1. Delhi Transport Corporation, I.P. Estate, New
Delhi
Delhi-110001. (through Chairman--Cum-Managing
Director).
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Ms. Manushi Prajapati)
Page 1 of 14
Item No. 59 (Court-V)
(Court O.A. No.2069/2018
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
(J):-
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
"(i) quash order dated 27-4-2018 27 (Annexure-A.2);
A.2);
(ii) fix the salary of the applicant at the scale he was getting during his service from 3-8-2009 2009 till 31-10-2015;
31(iii)
ii) modify Pension Payment Order dated 16 16-4-2018 (Annexure-A.1) to the extent it fixes the pension of the applicant on the basis of basic salary of Rs.9,020/- instead of Rs. 17,410/- and on the basis of qualifying service of 10 years, 1 month and 23 days instead instead of 32 years 3 months and 2 days;
(iv) direct the respondent to pay arrears of pension which will be fixed in terms of prayer (ii) above from 1-11-2015 1 2015 till actual payment after adjusting the amount already paid along with interest:
(v) direct the respondent re to pay Rs. 1,99,900/- (Rs. One lakh ninety nine thousand nine hundred only) deducted from applicant's salary vide order dated 27 27-4-2018 (Annexure--A.1) A.1) with interest from the date of deduction till payment; (v)
(vi) direct the respondent to pay the arrears of amount of Rs.5,520/ Rs.5,520/-(Rs. Five thousand five hundred twenty only) being deducted from the pension of the applicant every months."
2. Highlighting ting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant argued that by an award dated 26.03.2009, the Labour Court, Delhi reinstated the applicant with continuity of service with respect to seniority, gratuity, and suspension but without back wages. The said award reads as under:
" AWARD The management be directed to reinstate the workman in the same post within 30 days after publication of this award. The workman is entitled for continuity of service with respect to the seniority, gratuity and pension only. No back wages is awarded."
Page 2 of 14Item No. 59 (Court-V) (Court O.A. No.2069/2018 2.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was reinstated in service vide order dated 03.08.2009 (Annexure A A-4).
2.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant retired from service of the respondents on 31.10.2015 on superannuation after having served for about 36 years. Learned counsel drew our attention to an order dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure A/7) wherein the applicant was paid his retirement gratuity, which was calculated on the basis of qualifying servi service of 32 yearss 03 months and 02 days on the basis of basic salary of Rs.17,410/-.
2.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant preferred various representations to the respondents respondent to pay his post post- retirement pension, but to no avail. Finally, the applicant applicant sent a legal notice dated 20.02.2018 to the respondent for release of his post retirement pension. Thereafter, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 16.04.2018.
2.4. He further submitted that in the said impugned order dated 16.04.2018 the qualifying service of the applicant, which 32 years 03 months and 02 days as per Gratuity Payment Order, was also reduced to 10 year 01 month and 23 days and the basic pay of the applicant applicant has been reduced from Rs.17410/- to Rs.9,020/-.
Rs.9,020/ 2.5. He further submitted that the respondents passed an order dated 27.04.2018 wherein the salary of the applicant was re re-fixed w.e.f.
13.08.2009 to 31.10.2015 and at the time of retirement, the appl applicant was entitled to basic salary of Rs.9,020/-
Rs.9,020/ instead of Rs.17,410/ Rs.17,410/-.
Page 3 of 14Item No. 59 (Court-V) (Court O.A. No.2069/2018 2.6. He further submitted that a sum of Rs.11,89,749/ Rs.11,89,749/- was ordered to be recovered from the applicant on the basis of the said re re-fixation of the salary.
A sum of Rs.1,99,900/-, Rs.1,99,900/ whichh was arrears of pension from 01.11.2015 to 31.03.2018, was adjusted against the said recovery and not paid to the applicant, and he was directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.9,89,849/- to the respondents.
2.7. He submitted that the pension of the applicant was reduced from Rs.9,320/- to Rs.3,800/-
Rs.3,800/ as a step to recover the said balance amount of Rs.9,89,849/-.. Thus, a sum of Rs.5,520/-
Rs.5,520/ is deducted from the pension of the applicant every month. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed the present O.A. 2.8. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No.2588/2017 pronounced on 30.01.2025 in the case of Kartar Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Corporation.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respon respondents relied upon on the averments made in the counter affidavit. However, no plausible explanation is coming forth as to the reasons for the above submissions made on behalf of the applicant and the reduction of qualifying services,, except the fact that learned lear counsel has drawn our attention to Annexure R-33 dated 06.01.2017, which reads as under:
"The humble request is that I conductor Jai Prakash Badge No.13534, P.T. No.20552 was employed with DTC. Now I have retired.
I was removed from service on 03.07.1987 03.07.1987 and on 12.08.1988. I received cheque No.694551 for Rs.5244.28 paise towards the employer share of C.P. Fund. which I did not deposited again after joining duty/ being reinstated.
Now after retirement, today till 31.01.2017 this amount with interest comes to Rs.83930.00. Which I am unable to deposit in the C.P. Fund. Hence, your Page 4 of 14 Item No. 59 (Court-V) (Court O.A. No.2069/2018 goodself requested that the above said amount may kindly be recovered from my pension amount in easy installments. for I am unable to deposit entire amount."
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records of the case.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1 Upon reviewing the record, we observe that the respondents have not provided a due and drawn statement to demonstrate the exact amount payable by the applicant for the recovery of CPF, which was to be repaid by him in installments based on his undertaking.
undertak 5.2 .2 It is undisputed that, as per the Award, the applicant was entitled to continuity of service solely for the purposes of seniority, gratuity, and pension.
5.3 The applicant's qualifying services for gratuity and pension purposes, based on continuous service, totaled 32 years, 3 months, and 2 days.
However, this period was reduced to 10 years, 1 month, and 23 days, resulting in significant financial losses, including reduced pension and gratuity. The respondents made this reduction without iissuing a show-cause notice, providing reasons, or considering the amount owed by the applicant for the CPF fund remittance.
5.4 The present case is covered by all four corners in light of the decision rendered by this Tribunal in Kartar Singh (supra) wherein it was held as under :-
"4.1 In Om Pal Singh vs Disciplinary Authority decided on 14 January, 2020 (AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT Page 5 of 14 Item No. 59 (Court-V) (Court O.A. No.2069/2018 1920, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 36), the Apex Court observed as under :-
"11. In J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal & Anr. , this Court dealt with the issue regarding the entitlement of a delinquent to claim continuity of service and consequential benefits in all cases of reinstatemen reinstatement as follows:
"17. There is also a misconception that whenever reinstatement is directed, 'continuity of service' and 'consequential benefits' should follow, as a matter of course. The disastrous effect of granting several promotions as a 'consequential bbenefit' to a person who has not worked for 10 to 15 years and who does not have the benefit of necessary experience for discharging the 6 (2007) 2 SCC 433 higher duties and functions of promotional posts, is seldom visualized while granting consequential benefits automatically. Whenever courts or Tribunals direct reinstatement, they should apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances to decide whether 'continuity of service' and/or 'consequential benefits' should also be directed. We may in thi this behalf refer to the decisions of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. S. Narasa Goud [2003 (2) SCC 212], A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Abdul Kareem [2005 (6) SCC 36] and R.S.R.T.C. R.T.C. v. Shyam Bihari Lal Gupta [2005 (7) SCC 406]."
4.2 We observe that the issue involved in the present Original Application is no longer res integra in light of decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Of Haryana & Ors. Etc vs O.P. Gupta Etc tc decided on 12 January, 1996 (reported in JT 1996 (3), 141 1996 SCALE (1) 602, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2936), wherein it has been held as under: under:-
"Having Having regard to the above contentions, the question arises: whether the respondents are entitled to the arrears of salary? It is seen that their entitlement to work arises only when they are promoted in accordance with the Rules. Preparation of the seniority ity list under Rule 9 is a condition precedent for consideration and then to pass an order of promotion and posting to follow. Until that exercise is done, the respondents cannot be posted in the promotional posts. Therefore, their contention that though tthey were willing to work, they were not given the work after posting them in promotional posts has no legal foundation. The rival parties had agitated their right to seniority. Ultimately, this Court had directed the appellant to prepare the seniority list strictly in accordance with Rule 9 untrammeled by any other inconsistent observation of the Court or the instructions issued in contravention thereof. Since the order had become final in 1990, when the appeal had been disposed of by the Court by the above directions, the State in compliance thereof prepared the seniority list in Page 6 of 14 Item No. 59 (Court-V) (Court O.A. No.2069/2018 accordance with the Rules and those directions and promotions were given to all eligible persons and postings were made accordingly on December 1, 1992. In the interregnum some had retired. As stated earlier, though the deemed date has been given as 1.1.1983, the respondents cannot legitimately claim to have worked in those posts for claiming arrears and, as a fact, they did not work even on ad hoc basis.
This Court in Paluru Ramakrishnaiah & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. [(1989) 2 SCR 92 at page 109] considered the direction issued by the High Court and upheld that there has to be "no pay for no work", i.e., a person will not be entitled ntitled to any pay and allowance during the period for which he did not perform the duties of higher post, although after due consideration, he was given a proper place in the gradation list having been deemed to be promoted to the higher post with effect from the date his junior was promoted. He will be entitled only to step up the scale of pay retrospectively from the deemed date but is not entitled to the payment of arrears of the salary. The same ratio was reiterated in Virender Kumar vs. Avinash Chandra Chadha [(1990) 3 SCC 482] in paragraph 16.
It is true, as pointed out by Sri Hooda, that in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman [AIR 1991 SC 2010] this Court had held that where the incumbent was willing to work but was denied the opportunity to work for no fault of him, he is entitled to the payment of arrears of salary. That is a case where the respondent was kept under suspension during departmental enquiry and sealed cover procedure was adopted because of the pendency of the criminal case. When the criminal case ended in his favour and departmental proceedings were held to be invalid, this Court held that he was entitled to the arrears of salary. Th That ratio has no application to the cases where the claims for promotion are to be considered in accordance with the rules and the promotions are to be made pursuant thereto."
4.3 In Appeal (civil) 7953 of 2004 State of Kerala & Ors. VS E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai decided on 17/04/2007 17/04/2007, the Apex Court held as under :-
"Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before Court or Tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that casee the Court may grant sometime full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to th there being any change Page 7 of 14 Item No. 59 (Court-V) (Court O.A. No.2069/2018 in law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard and fast rule. The principle 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where courts have granted monetary benefits also.
However, so far as present case is concerned, as per directions given by the Court, petitioner's case was considered and it was found that persons junior to him were appointed and he was wrongly denied. Therefore, the petitioner was promoted moted from retrospective effect i.e. 15.9.1961 but he was not paid the benefit of promotion in terms of arrears of salary. Therefore, he approached the Court and learned Single Judge did not give him the monetary benefit of the promotional post from re retrospective effect in terms of arrears of salary. In the review application, the benefit was given from the date he filed O.P. No. 585 of 1975 i.e. 15.6.1972. This appears to be reasonable. The petitioner did not approach the Court for the back wages from om 15.9.1961 but he filed a petition dated 15.6.1972 and the Court granted the benefit from the date of filing of the petition before the Court i.e.15.6.1972.The incumbent in the meanwhile has retired on 31.7.1980.Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances mstances of the case, the view taken by the High Court appears to be justified and there is no ground to interfere in it. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs."
4.4 The Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya havidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others others, further analysed various other decisions on this issue, including J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K P Agarwal and Another and culled out the position of law as under:
"33. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned ntioned judgments are:
i). In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
ii). The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudic adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors.
XXX
iv).. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power Under Section 11 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and/o and/or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any Page 8 of 14 Item No. 59 (Court-V) (Court O.A. No.2069/2018 misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justification for award of full back wages.
v). The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acacted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such ccases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman mployee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrong doings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.
vi) In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award ward of the primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the aagony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra).
vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of tthe judgments of three Judge Benches referred to herein above and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman."
4.5 The decisions in J.K. Synthetics (supra) and Deepali Gundu undu (supra) were considered in two decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mahabir Prasad v. DTC,, (2014) 144 DRJ 422 and Jagdish Chander v. DTC, 2020 LLR 754, wherein in the facts of the said case (Mahabir Prasad v. DTC case) reinstatement was directed by the Labour Page 9 of 14 Item No. 59 (Court-V) (Court O.A. No.2069/2018 Commissioner, with continuity of service but without back wages. Thereafter, DTC reinstated the workman without any back wages and without ithout any benefits on notional pay fixation, promotion, ACP, increments and withheld pension and terminal benefits also. Challenging the said decisions, the Workman claimed that since "continuity of service" was directed, he would be entitled to pension andnd other terminal benefits. In this case, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court observed as under:
"20. The above discussion reveals that there appeared to be no standard pattern of directing how a reinstated employee is to be given the benefit after reinstatement. In Deepali Gundu Surwase(supra), for the first time, the restitutionary principle underlying reinstatement and other benefits was spelt out and a semblance of uniformity was attempted. If that is to be kept in mind, what is apparent in this case is that the petitioner had to battle for over a decade and a half to secure justice. The Labour Court held that that the enquiry against him illegal; went into the material an found that the charge of misconduct was baseless. It consequently directed ected reinstatement without back wages. Whilst the denial of back wages is not in question, the Award directed continuity of service. If DTC's contention were to be accepted, the petitioner would stand doubly penalized for the delay in securing justice, pplainly for no fault of his. The denial of 15 years' salary would result in his denial of pension, or at least a vastly diminished pension, gratuity and other terminal benefits. If these benefits are denied, the direction to grant continuity of service woul would be a hollow relief. Furthermore, to restore him in the pay scale at the stage of his termination would be to freeze him in a pay scale that is no longer existent, or at least unrecognizable. It is pertinent that a withholding of 2 increments for two year years, with cumulative effect has been held to be a major penalty (imposable only after an enquiry) since the increments "would not be counted in his time time-scale of pay" in perpetuity. In other words, the clock would be set back in terms of his earning a higher scale of pay, by two scales. See Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab 1991 Supp (1) SCC
504. Keeping this in mind, if the petitioner were to be restored in the pay scale at the stage of his termination, it would amount to withholding several increments, and tthus be equivalent to imposing a compounded major penalty.
21. Consequently, it is held that the direction to grant continuity meant that the petitioner had to be given notional increments for the duration he was out of employment, in the grade and the equivalent ivalent grade which replaced it later, till he reached the end of the pay scale. Since there is no direction to give consequential benefits, the petitioner cannot claim promotion as a matter of right; it would have to be in accordance with the rules. ACP bbenefits however, should be given. The notional pay fixation would also mean that he would be entitled to reckon the period between his removal and reinstatement as having been in employment for pension, gratuity, and contributions to provident fund etc. This is Court directs the DTC to issue an order extending these benefits to the petitioner for the 15 year period Page 10 of 14 Item No. 59 (Court-V) (Court O.A. No.2069/2018 between his dismissal in 1995 and his eventual reinstatement in 2011, within eight weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed in these terms; tthere shall be no order as to costs."
4.6 In the case of Jagdish Chander (supra) (supra), reinstatement was directed with full back wages. Upon challenge, the Hon'ble High Court in an LPA had modified this order to deny back wages, but DTC had agreed not to chall challenge reinstatement, to grant the benefit of continuity of service and to compute pension accordingly. Thereafter, the Workman was not given ACP benefits and various other benefits. Since the Division Bench in LPA had recorded that it was upholding the awar award on the basis of DTC's assurance that continuity of service would be given, the Court directed the Workman's pay scale to be fixed by notionally granting him increments and benefits under the ACP scheme, and held as under :-
"28. Therefore, what becomes clear from a perusal of the judgment in Mahabir Prasad (supra) is that reinstatement with continuity of service is the norm. While in Mahabir Prasad (supra) the Labour Court had ordered reinstatement with continuity but without back wages, in the present ccase the Labour Court ordered both reinstatement and full back wages. The DB of this Court modified the Award only to the extent of denying the Petitioner full back wages but acknowledged that the intent of the Award was to grant the Petitioner continuity off service. This is plain from the operative portion of the order of the DB partly allowing DTC's LPA. It explained the rationale for denial of full back wages as follows: "In our considered opinion, when the corporation has agreed not to challenge the orde order of reinstatement, extend the benefit of continuity of service and compute the pension on the said factual backdrop. The CAT, in the impugned order, erred in denying the Petitioner the benefit of continuity in service upon reinstatement and in applying th the law as explained in Mahabir Prasad (supra) that while this would not entitle him to promotions, the Petitioner would upon reinstatement be entitled to the increments on the pay scale he was drawing at the time of termination of his services and further that hat for the purpose of gratuity and pension he would be treated as having been in service throughout.
30. The CAT erred in referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Narsagoud (supra) which has been squarely dealt with and rejected by a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra). In fact, the CAT failed to take notice of the aforesaid judgments in spite of the Petitioner raising this specific point in his RA No. 39/2016. 31. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned orders of the CAT are hereby set aside. The Respondent/DTC is directed to: i. Fix the Petitioner's pay scale by notionally granting him the increments and benefits under the ACP Scheme to which he now stands entitled."Page 11 of 14
Item No. 59 (Court-V) (Court O.A. No.2069/2018 5.5 In view of above discussions and analysis of the ratio in above cited case laws, illustratively, the consequential benefits would mean and include:
include:-
(i) Increments
(ii) HRA and CCA
(iii) Notional Refixation of pay upon reinstatement
(iv) Leave encashment enc
(v) Festival Advance/Flood Advance
(vi) Productivity Linked Bonus/ Adhoc bonus
(vii) Interest
(viii) ACP/MACP
(ix) Seniority
(x) Promotion 5.6. In Om Prakash & Ors. v. Delhi Jal Board, 2015 XAD (Delhi) 448, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while considering a case where reinstatement was directed with immediate effect and whether in such a case regularization ought to be given to the workman held that 'continuity of service' ought to be read into the relief of reinstatement reinstatement and directed regularization in accordance with the policy of the Management held as under:
under:-
"18. In view of the aforesaid decisions, coupled with the fact that while granting the relief of reinstatement even theback wages were also granted. That at being so, the merefact that along with the relief of reinstatement the word"continuity of service" has not been mentioned does no tmean that the said relief was not granted. That being sothe mere fact that the word "with immediate effect" was mentioned in the award does not mean that the Court impliedly declined the relief of continuity of service."
5.7. We observe that the issue involved in the present Original Application is no longer res integra in light of decision ecision rendered by the Apex Court in Statee Of Haryana & Ors. Etc vs O.P. Gupta Etc decided on 12.01.1996 Page 12 of 14 Item No. 59 (Court-V) (Court O.A. No.2069/2018 (reported in JT 1996 (3), 141 1996 SCALE (1) 602, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2936), wherein it has been held as under:
under:-
"Having Having regard to the above contentions, the question arises: whether the respondents are entitled entit to the arrears of salary? It is seen that their entitlement to work arises only when they are promoted in accordance with the Rules. Preparation of the seniority list under Rule 9 is a condition precedent for consideration and thenthen to pass an order of promotion and posting to follow. Until that exercise is done, the respondents cannot be posted in the promotional posts. Therefore, their contention that though they were willing to work, they were not given the work after posting them m in promotional posts has no legal foundation. The rival parties had agitated their right to seniority. Ultimately, this Court had directed the appellant to prepare the seniority list strictly in accordance with Rule 9 untrammeled by any other inconsistent inconsistent observation of the Court or the instructions issued in contravention thereof. Since the order had become final in 1990, when the appeal had been disposed of by the Court by the above directions, the State in compliance thereof prepared the seniority list in accordance with the Rules and those directions and promotions were given to all eligible persons and postings were made accordingly on December 1, 1992. In the interregnum some had retired. As stated earlier, though the deemed date has been given as 1. 1.1.1983, the respondents cannot legitimately claim to have worked in those posts for claiming arrears and, as a fact, they did not work even on ad hoc basis.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1.
.1. In view of the above analysis, we allow the OA and direct the respondents too provide a correct due and drawn statement for the purpose of adjustments, if any, any, made towards CPF remittance ((to which the applicant is liable to pay) by calculating the total length of service from date of joining until superannuation, which is coming out to 32 years 03 months, and 02 days for the purposes of fixation of pension/ gratuity payable. Accordingly, the pension of the applicant shall be re-fixed re fixed and arrears shall be paid thereto within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a ce certified copy of this order. The applicant shall also be entitled to the refund of a sum of Rs.1,99,900/-,, which was arrears of pension from 01.11.2015 to 31.03.2018.
The arrears towards pension fixation and gratuity shall carry an interest at Page 13 of 14 Item No. 59 (Court-V) (Court O.A. No.2069/2018 the GPF rate prevailing at the time of applicant's retirement until the actual payment.sp 6.2. Pending ending M.A.s, M s, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/as/
Page 14 of 14