Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Surinder Kumar Sharma vs M/O Railways on 4 March, 2021
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
(order reserved on 10.2.2021)
O.A.No.060/00454/2020
Chandigarh, this the 4-3-2021.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. AJANTA DAYALAN, MEMBER (A)
Surinder Kumar Sharma son of Sh. Muni Lal Sharma, resident of
House No.13-A, Turi Bazar, Ferozepur City, Punjab.
Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Piyush Sharma).
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railways,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer, Northern Railways,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
3. Senior Finance Manager, Office of Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway, Ferozepur Cantt., Punjab.
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Yogesh Putney).
.. Respondents
ORDER
Hon'ble Mrs. Ajanta Dayalan, Member(A).
1. The present OA has been filed by the applicant Surinder Kumar Sharma seeking re-fixation of his revised pension as on 1.1.2006 in the scale of S-14 instead of S-13. He has also sought consequent fixation of pension with effect from 1.1.2016 as well as payment of arrears along with interest @ 12%. Further the applicant has sought payment of Rs.30000/- as cost of litigation and Rs. one lakh on account of mental agony and harassment. 2
2. The applicant was a Group `C' employee in the respondent department. He was selected for promotion to Group `B' Gazetted for the post of Accounts Officer (Class II) against 75% quota. Thereafter, the applicant was posted as Assistant Divisional Accounts Officer. He joined on 27.5.1992 in the scale of Rs.2375-3500 (Annexure A-2). He retired on 31.5.1993 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years.
3. The applicant has pleaded that vide order dated 6.11.1995 (Annexure A-3), the pay scale of Group `B' officers was revised to Rs.2375-3750. Further vide order dated 5.2.1998 (Annexure A-4), Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, were amended. As per the amended clause, in case of Group `B' Accounts Officer, the revised scale S-14 will be operated to the extent of 20% of the total Group `B' cadre strength of Accounts Department. The revised scale S-15 will be operated to the extent of 80% of the total Group `B' cadre strength of the Accounts Department. Further, it was added that these Amendment Rules have been given retrospective effect from 1.1.1996 and will not adversely affect any employee to whom these rules apply.
4. The counsel for the applicant has argued that as per notification dated 9.2.1998 (Annexure A-4), cadre strength has been replaced in the Amendment Rules by the words "Officers on rolls".
3
5. The applicant has further pleaded that his grievance started from 1.10.2013 when the revised PPO was issued after implementation of 6th CPC with effect from 1.1.2006. The revised pension of the applicant was fixed on the basis of pre-revised scale of Rs.7450-11500 with grade pay of Rs.4600/- vide S-13. However, the applicant was entitled to pay scale of Rs.7500-12000. In this regard, the applicant has also relied upon notification dated 23.9.2008 ( Annexure A-9) issued by Railway Board wherein the present pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 has been mentioned against the post of Assistant Account Officer Group `B' Gazetted and the grade pay has been shown as Rs.5400/-.
6. The applicant has further stated that he is more than 78 years of age and it is difficult for him to collect all the documents to establish his claim. However, he started correspondence with the respondents and the first letter was sent on 27.6.2016 followed by further communications. He even wrote a letter to Hon'ble Railway Minister on 28.3.2018 (Annexure A-12).
7. The applicant has further pleaded that on 19.4.2018, a revised PPO was issued to him giving details of pay fixation right from 4th Pay Commission to 7th Pay Commission. The applicant was placed in Level 7 after implementation of 7th Pay Commission. Thereafter, the applicant collected some information from the respondents and he found that Group `B' (Gazetted Officers) are placed in Level-9. As 4 such, he again represented to the Railway Ministry on 28.5.2019. He also sent a representation dated 5.2.2019 (Annexure A-14) to Financial Adviser & Chief Account Officer. The applicant has stated that he is knocking every door since 2013 for correct fixation of his pension with effect from 1.1.2006 in terms of notification dated 23.9.2008 issued by the Railway Board whereby Grade Pay has been retained as Rs.5400/- for Assistant Account Officer (Group B Gazetted) while operating S-14 in the pay scale of Rs.7500-250-12000, but the same is yet to be given to him. Hence the OA.
8. The respondents have refuted the claim of the applicant.
They have stated that the applicant has sought re-fixation of his revised pension as on 1.1.2006 on the basis of his pre-revised scale of Rs.7500-12000 as per his original PPO (Annexure A-7) in the scale of S-14 instead of S-13. The respondents have stated that this relief is wholly mis- conceived and not tenable as the applicant retired on 31.5.1993 in the pay-scale of Rs.2375-3500 and was drawing pay of Rs.2975/-at the time of his retirement. Corresponding pay scale of Rs.2375-3500 consequent upon 5th Pay Commission was Rs.7450-11500. The pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 mentioned in the PPO dated 10.1999 (Annexure A-7) was an inadvertent mistake and a typographical error. Despite this, the pension of the applicant was correctly fixed at Rs.4417/- with effect from 1.1.1996 in the pay scale of Rs.7450-11500. The 5 respondents have further stated that no benefit can be derived by the applicant due to erroneous inadvertent mistake crept in mentioning the pay scale in the PPO.
9. The respondents have further stated that it is settled law that the respondents are competent and entitled to rectify the mistake at any time. Also any action in departure to the statutory rule confers no right much less any vested right to claim the benefit of the same nor the said illegal erroneous action can be allowed to perpetuated as held by the Courts in Jagdish Prajapat versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1998(2) A.T.J. Page 286). The respondents have also relied upon the law laid down in the case of Anand Prakash versus State of Punjab (2005(4) R.S.J. Page 749) and Raj Kumar Batra versus State of Haryana ( 1992(1) S.C.T. Page 129) by holding that as and when a mistake is detected, the authority is within his right to rectify a mistake. In the case of Chandigarh Administration versus Narang Singh (J.T. 1997(3) S.C. Page 536), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a mistake can be corrected at any time.
10. The respondents have further argued that the OA is hopelessly barred by limitation as the applicant has been drawing his pension since 1.6.1993 without any demur and he had not made any grievance with regard to his pension. Hence at this belated stage i.e. after more than 23 years, he made first representation in 2016 which is much after 6 the prescribed period of limitation and his superannuation. No application for condonation of delay has been filed and hence the OA deserves to be dismissed.
11. The respondents have further stated that the applicant is mis-leading the Tribunal as he has placed reliance on Railway Board letter dated 6.11.1995 (Annexure A-3), notification of Revised Pay Amendment Rules dated 5.2.1998 (Annexure A-4), RBE No.133 of 1997 dated 8.10.1997, Ist schedule to Rules 3 and 4 (Annexure A-5), RBE No.16/1999 dated 10.2.1999 (Annexure A-6) and notification dated 23.9.2008 (Annexure A-9). However, no benefit of instructions dated 6.11.1995 can be drawn by him as the same came into force with effect from 30.7.1993, whereas the applicant stood retired on 31.5.1993. Similarly, notification dated 5.2.1998 amending the Pay Rules came into force with effect from 1.1.1996 and was applicable for in-service officers. The respondents have given detailed position of all these instructions and remarks thereon to show the non-applicability in case of the applicant in paragraph 4 of their written statement.
12. The respondents have also stated that there is no challenge to any of the notifications and PPO order vide which pension of the applicant was revised with effect from 1.1.2006. Similarly, the applicant has been drawing pension pursuant to PPO dated 1.10.2013 and no dispute or grievance was ever raised by him. Hence the OA 7 deserves to be dismissed on the principle of waiver, estopple and acquiescence.
13. In view of all above, the respondents have concluded that no claim is sustainable against the respondents and the OA deserves to be dismissed with costs for frivolous litigation as the applicant was an Accounts Officer and knew the rules. The applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the OA.
14. I have heard the opposing counsel of opposing sides and have also gone through the pleadings. I have also given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter.
15. The applicant was a Assistant Divisional Accounts Officer of Railways and retired on 31.5.1993. He is disputing his pension fixation with effect from 1.1.2006 post 5th CPC. The other claims are consequential by way of re-fixation of pension with effect from 1.1.2016, payment of arrears, interest and cost of litigation and harassment.
16. I observe that the first order the applicant is relying upon to establish his entitlement to higher pay scale is dated 6.11.1995 and is placed at Annexure A-3. However, this order itself in para 3 clearly states that these orders are effective from 30.7.1993. The applicant already stood retired on 31.5.1993. Hence, these instructions are not at all applicable to him. Further, these instructions are not applicable to him as these are for in-service officers. The next instruction which is relied upon by him is dated 8 5.2.1998 (Annexure A-4). Even these instructions came into force with effect from 1.1.1996. These are also related to in-service officers and not to retired officers. These instructions even talk of 80% of the total Group `B' cadre strength to be in higher scale of S-15 and 20% in the lower scale of S-14. Such differentiation is not possible for retired officers. Hence, even these instructions are not applicable to him. The next instructions are dated 9.2.1998. Here, even the words "Cadre Strength" appearing in the Amendment Rules has been replaced by the words "Officer on rolls". Hence it becomes crystal clear that the Amended Rules were meant for officers in service and not for retired officers. With these observations, the whole basis of the applicant's case goes away. I, therefore, find no substance in the claim of the applicant.
17. Further, I observe that in the PPO at Annexure A-7, scale of pay has been mentioned as Rs.7500-12000. However, as stated by the respondents, this was clearly an error and despite this error, the pension fixation was done correctly for the applicant. It is further observed that in the subsequent PPO dated 1.10.2013, pay scale has been mentioned as Rs.7450-11500 which tallies with the stand of the respondents that the applicant was entitled to this pay scale only. Further, I observe that this PPO dated 1.10.2013 has not been even challenged by the applicant. Besides the respondents are within their rights to correct 9 an erroneous mistake and as such, there is no illegality or impropriety in correcting this mistake by the respondents at a later date.
18. Besides the applicant has raised his claim only now through this OA in 2020 whereas he is claiming re-fixation of pension subsequent to 6th Pay Commission right from 1.1.2006 onwards. Thus, there is a clear delay of over 13 years in making his claim which is not permissible in terms of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, wherein the prescribed time limit for approaching the Tribunal is one year. No application can be admitted without sufficient cause having been explained. In the instant case, - what to talk of sufficient cause - the applicant has not even made an application for condonation of delay. Hence the OA deserves to be dismissed on the grounds of limitation as well.
19. Besides, I also observe that the notifications quoted by the applicant are not under challenge. Even the revised PPO issued to the applicant against wh ich he is seeking re- fixation of his pension has not been challenged. The instructions/notifications are not applicable to the applicant for the reasons given in detail by the respondents in the written statement. No relief can be granted to the applicant without quashing of PPO. On these technical grounds as well, the OA deserves to be dismissed. 10
20. In view of all above, I find that the OA deserves to be dismissed both on the ground of limitation as well as on merit and the applicant does not deserve any relief.
21. In view of all above, the OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ajanta Dayalan) Member (A) Place: Chandigarh Dated: - 4-3-2021.
KKS