Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Jyoti Dnyanoba Dhayarkar vs M/O Earth Science on 3 February, 2023
OA 303/202 T- CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAL 0.A.303/2021 Dated this Friday the 3rd day of Febru ary, 2023. Coram : De. Bhagwan Sahai, Member (Administrative), Smi.Jyoti Dnyandba Dhayarkar, D/o Late Somnath Pandharinath Raut, Meteorologist Gr, '\A' (Retired) Réat: Flat C-502. Garden View, Parvatinagar, Radhika Society, Sinhgad Road, Pune -- 41} 030, Retired from the office of the Head Climate Research & Services, the Government of India, India Meteorological Department, Shivajinagar, Pune ~ 411 005, . Applicant. ( By Advocate Shri D.S. Dhayarkar ). Versus 1. The Head Climate Research & Services, The Government of India, India Meteorological Departrnent, Shivajinapar, Pune -- 41} 005. Union of India, through the office of the Director General of Meteorology, The Government of India, India Meteorological Department, Mausam Bhavan, Lodi Road, New Delhi -- 110 003. .. Respondents. bh ( By Advacate Shri NUK, Ra jpurohit ). Order reserved on : 12.01 2023 Order delivered on : 03.02.2023 ne see ee 2 | OA.303/2021 ORDER
Smidyoti D, Dhayarkar, retired MetA has filed this OLA. on 05.03.2021 seeking setting aside of order dated 13.10.2019 igsued by Shri K.N. Mohan, Scientist 'F', office of Head-Climte Research & Services, IMD, Shivajinagar, Pune (Respondent No.1); direction to Respondent No.1 to grant encashment of leave of 300 days as per balance to the credit of the applicant on 31.07.2019; and difference of amount of Rs.1,05,446/- along with 9% interest from 15.10.2019 till date of payment and awarding cost of this application.
2. Brief facts :
2{a). The applicant was working with India Meteorological Department, Office of Climate Research And Services, Shivajinagar, Pune as Met.A and retired on 31.07.2019. The applicant claims that she had earned leave credit balance to her account on 31.07.2019 as 305 days. However, the respondents have paid her pirashment of 'e! 395 earned leave of only 225 days and half pay leave of 75 days, and amount of Rs. 7,38,124/- has been paid to her. She claims that for remaining balance of earned leave of 75 days, she should have been paid encashment of that leave deouhting to 1,05.446/-, but the respondents have paid her only for half pay leave of 75 days.
2(b). After scrutiny of her leave account, she had pointed out that earned leave credit halance to her account on 30.06.1992 was 84 Lind om i id oe) ta?
B35 4 & days, even afer she had availed gamed leave of 83 days Trom 93.02.1992 to 24.04.1902, Therefore, earned leave credit balance in her account ought to have been only of one day but the office of Respondent No.1 had wrongly shown the earned leave balance of 83 days. This error of 82 days of earned leave was rectified by office of Respondent No.1 at the time of her retirement. The error had been made in 1992 and it was rectified only in the year 2019 ie. after 27 years, before her retirement. The rectification of the error in her _ earned leave balance was done without order of Competent Authority. 2{c}. About balance of 64 days earned isava; the Respondent No.1 has replied that she had availed of that earned leave in different spells and it was recorded in the Service Book. The office of Respondent No.1 had not shown leave account of the applicant to her during her entire service, That office had obtained her signature in the Service Book after verification of her yearly service. Due to this error in maintaining correct leave account of the applicant, the applicant has caused financial loss of Rs.1,05,446/- in leave encashment at the time of her retirement.
2a). The office of Respondent No.2 Le. the Director General of Meteorology, India Meteorological Department, Lodi Road, New Delhi informed the applicant through letter dated 19.03.2020 with reference to her application dated 17.01.2020 that payment of 40 OASOR L021 *
-
tnsuniled Leese Aw Has eofiveoient han aig etx: yey F Py har ac wer unavailed leave on her retirement had already been mace to her as per oe ia = aa fey Seater cal ar Reeeee) mee eh?
rules and no further payment is pending in this regard. Therefore, this O.A.
3. Contentions of the parties:
A. in the O.A., rejoinder and during arguments of his counsel, she has contended that -
3{a). as per Rule 39 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and DoPT OM dated 21.10.2013, the respondents did not verify the Service Book of the applicant. As per Rule 39(2) (b), cash equivalent of leave salary for both eared leave and half pay leave is to be calculated based on number of days of unutilized earned leave at credit subject to the total of earned leave and half pay leave nat exceeding 300 days. Overall limit for encahsment of leave including both earned leave and half pay leave shall not exceed 300 days. For timely payment of dues of encashment of leave to Government servants attaining the age of superannuation ~ need to obviate delays in payment of dues in terms of provisions of Rule 39 of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, the Competent Authority to grant leave is suo motu required to issue an order granting cash equivalent of leave salary for both earned leave and half pay leave at the credit of the Government servant on the date of | his/her retirement, subject to the prescribed limits. The delays in 5 OAB03/2021 reckoning the leave accumulations at the credit or Government servant at any stage, particularly at the time of retirement of the Government servant cannot be acceptable and can be construed as administrative lapse, liable te attract provisions of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The mechanism should be put in place to check delays in issuing orders of such retiring Government servants who have 300415 days earned leave at credit on 20° of the month in which they are retiring as any leave availed by such Government servants shall not impact the maximum ceiling of encashment of such leave even if any request is made for grant of earned leave during the said period:
3(b). ihe respondents did not get audited through internal audit wing the Service Book and leave account of the applicant as provided under Civil Account Manual issued by Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Controller General of Accounts. The office of Respondent No.1 has not intimated the applicant as io how the balance of earned leave of 225 days Was worked out instead of balance of 300 days, Therefore, the order passed by Respondent No.l dated 15.10.2019 is illegal, arbitrary and against the interest of justice;
3(e). the applicant has relied on the Supreme Court caselaw in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih, C.A.No.11527/2014 | dated 18.12.2014 and Bombay High Court decision in case of Union 6 : OA 3032021 of India & Anr. Vs. Shri Nasiruddin Sadruddin [2016(4) AN MB 417).
Reply submitted by the respondents is not true and correct, which {s false and misleading. The Service Book and leave account are different documents of the applicant and they are maintained separately by Head of Office. The Head of Office of Respondent No.1 did not show leave account to her during her service period and signatures of the applicant against each entry in the leave account was not obtained. The Respondent No.1 has issued certificate of verification of service to the applicant as on 31.03.2014 Le. 5 years before the date of her retirement. Even the Pay & Accounts Office of IMD, Pune has not audited the Service Book and leave account of the applicant every year;
3¢d). on scrutiny of her Service Book, she observed that she had not been provided copy of e-Service Book and has not been given a e-Service book certificate to her as soon as it was completed. Thus the respondents had not followed the orocedure. The Pay & Accounts Office, IMD, Pune in the letter dated 31.03.2015 had mentioned that verification of qualifying service of the applicant is subject to the final verification ai the me of 'retirement. This statement 1s not correct. The respondents have not taken action as per Rule 30 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 for verification of service after completion of 18 years of service and 2 OA SOR/2024 credited to her account was deducted from the balance of eared leave at the time of retirement. This is a normal practice followed routinely by the office of respondents;
-3(h). shad the error not been detected and corrected, then it could have resulted in overpayment to the applicant. Even in 1992, the applicant-did not point out any error in her service record when she verified her Service Book and signed in token of its satisfaction. A photocopy of her Service Book was given to the applicant upon her request vide application dated 13.05.2019. Certified copy of the Service Book was also given to her on 27.08.2019. The office of Pay & Accounts Office had already informed her that qualifying service of the applicant had been verified subject to its final verification at the time of retirement as per letter dated 26.06.2019; Si). as per record with the respondents, the applicant had verified the correctness of each of Service Book entry on 03.04.2012 which also included the leave record. The earned leave of 83 days availed of by the applicant from 03.02.1992 "to 25.04.1992 was entered in the leave account as well as page 8 of Volume-Il of the Service Book. As per Government of India Rules on leave encashment on retirement, 75 days HPL. was added to the balance of earned leave of 225 days for calculating leave encashment of the | applicant and accordingly payment has been made to her.
19 OA30N202 1 Tn view of these facts, there is no substance or merit in claims and submissions of the applicant and the Q.A. should be cismussed.
4, Analvsis and conclusions :
4{a}. '| have carefully considered the submissions made by the applicant in the O.A. and her contentions in the rejoinder and during arguments of her counsel. I have also carefully considered the contentions of the respondents as well.
4(b). it is an admitted fact that the applicant herself had availed of earned leave of 83 days from 03.02.1992 to 25.04.1992. The office of Respondent No.l did not maintain the correct balance of earned leave of the applicant after availing of the earned leave of $3 days:
during 1992. Entries of leave balance and earned leave in the Service Book (entries reproduced from leave account) were shown to the applicant every year for verification and the applicant herself had 7 signed every year her Service Book after going through entries recorded in it.
4{c). The elann of the applicant that she herself had pointed out the mistake in balance of earned leave to her account by 30.06.1992 has been denied by the respondents. The applicant has not brought on record any evidence to show that she herself had informed the office of Respondent No.1] to make necessary correction in the when 5 years of service have been left before superannuation.
Therefore, the O.A. should be allowed.
B. Respondents 5 In reply to the O.A., sur-rejoinder and during arguments of their counsel, contentions of respondents are as follows:
Ae}. by Order No.GEOL69DD/Pen dated 15.10.2019 (Annex-R-1) passed by Shri K.N. Mohan, Scientist 'F', Head Climate, Research and Services, Pune in aceordance with DoPT OM dated 25.09.2008, sanction has been issued for grant of Rs.7,38,124/- to the applicant as cash equivalent of balance of 225 days earned leave and 75 days of HPL. The office practice is before issuing leave encahsment on retirement, the leave record is to be scrutinized thoroughly. Upon its scrutiny, error in the balance of earned leave the credit of 83 days was detected, this was immediately rectified;
3k). the MetNet account maintains the e-leave records which is reflection of the leave account maintained in the Service Book. The MetNet has been started from the year 2008 onwards and, therefore, the error in leave account prior to that period also got carried over. The balance of earned leave to the credit of the applicant got increased by 83 days during 1992. Since this error was noticed during routine scrutiny of leave account of the applicant, later on necessary correction was made in the balance of earned leave account. The : OA.303/2021 office of Respondent has shown the applicant her Service Book many times as per SR-22 and taken her signature under the column 'Signature of Government servant' There is no separate columm provided in leave account of the Government servant for 'obialnine such signature. The leave availed by the employee is reproduced in the Service Book from the leave account, The Service Book Is shown to the employee to enable him/her to check correctness of entries made in the Servi ce Book ie. entry of annual increment, entry of yearly service verification, entry of LTC, entry of promotion and pay fixation, entry of leave taken and correctness of balance of earned leave/half pay leave, etc and based on satisfaction of correctness of the entries, signatures of the Government servant are obtained;
3{g). the applicant did not point out any error in service record. The office had shown her Service Book and obtained her signature when this errar took place. The Service Book shown prior as well as after 1992 had her signature. The office of Respondent No.l had given detailed reply/clarification of leave balance and leave availed of vide letter dated 24.12.2019. The applicant was shown the entre Service Book consisting leave account maintained in Form 2 as part of the Service Book. During routine scrutiny of the leave account of the applicant prior to her retirement, the error in balance of earned leave was noticed and, therefore, excess balance of earned leave YW OA 3032021 balance of eamed leave to her account as on 30.06.1992 by correcting the mistake in the balance of earned leave, after having availed of ree earned leave for 83 days.
(a). | Based on submissions of the respondents and on perusal of the entries in the Service Book submitted by the respondents, it is clear that the entries made in the Service Book including those related to leave availed of and balance of eamed leave and HPL had been shown to the applicant every year and in token of having seen/verified she had signed the Service Book. Therefore, the claim of the applicant that for the mistake in the balance of eartied leave in her accoum from 1992, the respondents are responsible and she should be paid encashment for those additional already availed of 83 days of eared leave is quite shocking, mischievous, unjustified and totally unreasonable. The applicant was aware of the mistake in balance of eamed leave to her account from 1992 onwards but she seems to have:
deliberately not got it corrected by. pursuing with the respondents. She was motivated to get undue advantage of this mistake in the balance of earned leave at the time of retirement, as she has been attempting to her representations and in this O.A. 4(e). While those maintaining the service record of the applicant in office of Respondent No.! were also responsible for not maintaining correct balance of eared leave of the applicant, the 12 | GA,303/2021 applicant was also herself equally responsible for is continuaiion, Therefore, the mistake does not entitle her for payment of encashment of leave balance which did not exist.
4(f. As per relevant instructions, service record of 4 Government employee has to be verified for correctness of entries in the Service Book, including those in the leave account before his/her retirement. In fact the office of Pay & Accounts Office had also _ communicated to the applicant on 31.03.2015 that correctness of service record of the applicant was subject to final verification at the time of her retirement. Before retirement of the applicant, the office cof Respondent No.1 took necessary action for correcting entries in her leave record and at that time the mistake in the balance of eared' leave to credit of the applicant was detected and accofdingly necessary correction was made. Based on those correct figures of balance of eamed leave and half pay leave of the applicant at the time of her retirement, as per applicable rules and instructions, the office of Respondent No.1 has paid encashment to the applicant for balance of 225 days of earned leave and 75 days half pay leave amounting to In view of this, there is no merit in the claim of the applicant that she should have been paid additional encashment for earned leave of 75 days instead of 75 days of half pay leave.
13 OA3O3 2021 4(e). | The applicant has not denied the fact that entries in her Service Book, including those of availed of and balance leave were shown to her every year and afler seeing/perusing those entries in the Service record, che had signed in token thereof, Therefore, the claim of the applicant now thai the respondents have wrongly calculated the balance of earned leave to her credit at the time of retirement is not at all justified.
4(h). The reliance of the applicant on Supreme Court decision in cage of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer} (supra) is misplaced and of no help to her because in that decision the direction was for not making recovery from employees belonging to -
Class-If] and Class-IV servants, from retired employees, the employees who are due to retire | within one year of the order of recovery and recovery from employees when the EXCESS payment has been made for a period in excess of 5 years, before the order of recovery. In the applicant's case, the respondents have ai made any recovery from her, rather she is seeking additional payment and, therefore, this decision is not applicable to the case of the applicant.
in the Bombay High Court decision in Writ Petition No.6978/2010 dated 06.06.2016 (supra), also the facts were different relating to recovery detected after 6 years. Therefore, this decision .
also cannot help the applicant.
id OAIN2021
4). ss ASter having considered the rival submissions of the 4 I parties, it is clear that the office of Respondent No.l as well kv] ue applicant both were responsible for making mistake in the balance of earned leave of the applicant In the Service Book and leave account ar its continuation ull the record was scrutinized before | retirement of the applicant. However, because of this error on the part of the Respondent No.1 when the applicant herself was aware of the mistake, the applicant ézirwit claim any benefit because of that. mistake in balance of her earned leave. Instead of appreciating the correction of her leave record during scrutiny before her retiremerit by the office of Respondent No.l, the applicant has un-necesarily indulged in carrying out a totally frivolous and wasteful Iltigation through this O.A. In ihe O.A., the contentions of the applicant have no merit and those of the respondents hare justified. Hence the OLA. deserves to be dismissed with cost. However, | am restraining from imposing cost considering the fact that the applicant is a lady, who retired on 31.07.2019.
&. Decision: | The O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Bhabivar Safar Member (A). --
Se