Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh Budh Ram vs M/O Railways on 25 October, 2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A.No.191/2015
Wednesday, this the 25th day of October 2017
Hon'ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Sh. Budh Ram (Sr. Citizen aged about 61 years)
s/o Sh. Nathai
retired Gangman under
Senior Section Engineer / Shakurbasti/
Northern Railway, New Delhi
Presently resident of
Village Prayag Bagh
Post Office, Tejgarh, Distt. Pratap Garh (UP)
..Applicant
(Mr. N N S Rana, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager
Northern Railway HQ
Baroda House, New Delhi - 110 001
2. Chief Personnel Officer
Northern Railway HQ
Personnel Branch
3rd Floor, Annexe-1
Baroda House, New Delhi - 110 001
3. Divisional Railway Manager
Delhi Division/Northern Railway
State Entry Road
New Delhi - 110 055
4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer
(Sr. DPO in short)
Delhi Division / Northern Railway
State Entry Road, New Delhi - 110 055
5. Senior Divisional Financial Manager
(Sr. DFM in short)
Delhi Division / Northern Railway
State Entry Road, New Delhi
6. Senior Section Engineer / P. Way/
Delhi Division / Northern Railway
Shakurbasi, New Delhi - 110 34
..Respondents
(Mr. S M Arif, Advocate)
2
O R D E R (ORAL)
The applicant joined the respondent-department on 14.11.1976 as a casual labour and was deployed as a Gangman. His services were regularized on 02.05.1979 and thus he became a regular Gangman. The applicant retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2013 from Delhi Division of the Northern Railway.
2. The respondents, vide Annexure A-2 O.M. dated 30.09.2013, intimated the retiral dues of the applicant as under:-
i. Provident Fund - Rs.218361/-
ii. Leave Encashment - Rs.5506/-
iii. GIS - Rs.22802/-
iv. Commutation - Rs.258073/-
v. DCRG - Rs.360144/-
3. The respondents, vide Annexure A-1 letter dated 12.09.2014, have indicated that the following outstanding amounts are required to be recovered from the applicant from his retiral dues:
i. Last electricity bill - Rs.478/-
ii. Outstanding house rent - Rs.4964/-
iii. Increment put back recovery - Rs.56807/-
iv. Excess leave - Rs.32388/-
---------------------
- Total Rs.98934/-
--------------------
Accordingly, the respondents have deducted the amount of `98934/- from the gratuity of `360144/- payable to the applicant and after the deduction, they have paid him an amount of `261210/- towards the DCRG. 3
4. The grievance of the applicant is that the recovery ordered by the respondents vide Annexure A-1 letter dated 12.09.2014 was illegal and accordingly a prayer has been made by him in the O.A. seeking refund of the amount recovered.
5. Another prayer made in the O.A. is that the applicant, as a part of his retiral benefits, is entitled for a medical card for availing the medical benefits from the railway hospitals under the Retired Employees Liberalized Health Scheme (RELHS), of which the applicant, like any other retired railway employees, becomes a compulsory member unless explicitly refused. It is stated that the applicant has paid one month's salary, i.e., `13120/-, as required under the RELHS, for getting the medical card. This amount, the applicant had authorized the respondents to recover from DCRG payable to him but the same was not done by the respondents. Since it was not done by the respondents, the applicant paid this amount in cash, for which he has been issued a receipt, a photocopy of which is at page 51 of the paper book.
6. Mr. N N S Rana, learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicant retired from service on 30.09.2013 and vacated the official quarter on 18.12.2013, i.e., after two and half months (Annexure A-8). He further submitted that as per the pay slip (Annexure A-8A - page 50), the applicant was required to pay a sum of `430/- per month towards the electricity charges, hence for the period from 01.10.2013 to 18.12.2013, i.e., about two and half months, the amount payable towards the electricity 4 charges would be about `1100/-, whereas the respondents have recovered an amount of `4781/- towards it, which is not at all justified.
7. Mr. Rana further stated that the applicant was required to pay a monthly rent of `71/- (Annexure A-8) towards the official quarter occupied by him and hence for this period, the amount recoverable towards the rent would be `184/-, whereas the respondents have recovered a sum of `4964/-. Mr. Rana also stated that the respondents have illegally recovered a sum of `56807/- towards 'increment put back recovery' without giving any details in this regard. The learned counsel stated that whenever the applicant was on leave without pay, his increment due has been postponed. In this connection, he drew my attention to the extracts of the service book of applicant, which are at pages 36 - 38 of the paper book. He thus argued that no recovery was due from him towards the 'increment put back recovery'. He further argued that recovery of `32388/- towards the excess leave was illegal, as no details have been furnished by the applicant. Mr. Rana vehemently argued that such recoveries cannot be made from the applicant in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others etc. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. I (2015) SLT 179. Mr. Rana also argued that the gratuity amount of the applicant determined by the respondents as `360144/- was not correct and as a matter of fact, the applicant is entitled for a higher amount if the qualifying service of the applicant is reckoned correctly.
8. Per contra, Mr. S M Arif, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the total length of service rendered by the applicant was 34 years, 4 5 months and 28 days, out of which the applicant remained on leave without pay (LWP) for 3 years 10 months and 11 days, and thus his qualifying service got reduced to 30 years 6 months and 17 days. Taking this into consideration, the DCRG amount payable to the applicant has been correctly worked out at `360144/-.
9. Mr. Arif further submitted that the applicant had only 7 days LAP and nil HAP due to his credit. He, however, availed 78 days of HAP and for this, he was paid a sum of `32388/- wrongly. Accordingly, it has been ordered to recover this amount from him.
10. As regards recovery of `56807/- towards 'increment put back', Mr. Arif stated that this amount has been wrongly paid to the applicant even though he was on LWP and accordingly this amount has been ordered to be recovered from him. Mr. Arif, however, could not furnish the details with regard to the period during which the excess leave was availed by the applicant as well as the period during which he was purportedly on LWP and yet was allowed the benefit of increment.
11. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings.
12. The main issue raised in this O.A. is with regard to the recoveries amounting to `98934/- effected from the applicant's retiral dues by the respondents. Admittedly, the applicant overstayed in the official quarter only for a period of two and half months after his retirement. The monthly rent was payable was `71/- and the monthly electricity charges payable was 6 `430/-, as is evident from the pay slip of the applicant (Annexure A-8/A). Hence, the outstanding amount towards the electricity charges and rent of the official quarter would be `1284/- (`1100 + `184). Therefore, I am of the view that there was no justification on the part of the respondents for ordering a far excess amount of `4781/- towards electricity charges and `4964/- towards rent of the official quarter from the applicant. Further, the respondents have failed to provide details with regard to the excess leave availed by the applicant and the period of LWP during which, according to them, increment was allowed to the applicant, for which he was not entitled.
13. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that amount of `32888/- recovered by the respondents towards excess leave availed by the applicant and `56807/- towards increment 'put back recovery' was not at all justified. Furthermore, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), such recoveries are impermissible, as the applicant has not secured any such payment by way of any misrepresentation.
14. It would be pertinent to mention here that the monthly rental as well as electricity dues are routinely recovered from the monthly salary of a railway servant and such recoveries reflect in his pay slip. Hence, to assume that there were any outstanding dues recoverable towards house rent payment and electricity charges from the applicant, would be erroneous. Any such outstanding dues towards these two items could be only for the period when the applicant had continued in the official quarter even after 7 his retirement, which was hardly two and half months, as noticed hereinabove.
15. The applicant, a retired railway employee, is entitled to become a member of RELHS compulsorily, for which he has already paid a month's salary amounting to `13120/-. Hence, he is entitled for the medical card.
16. Learned counsel for applicant has argued that the quantum of DCRG payable to the applicant has not been correctly worked out by the respondents, as the service rendered by him as a casual labour for about two and half months has not been taken into account. Mr. Rana has also argued that the applicant has not been paid consolidated transfer grant amounting to one month's salary, to which every retiring railway employee is entitled to. Since in this O.A. only the recovery ordered as per Annexure A-1 communication dated 12.09.2014 and non-issuance of medical card are the main prayers, I refrain to deal with the issues of calculation of DCRG and payment of consolidated transfer grant.
17. In the conspectus of discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, this O.A. is disposed of in the following terms:-
a) The respondents shall recover rent for the official quarter and electricity charges only for two and half months, i.e., from 01.10.2013 to 18.12.2013 @ `71/- per month and `430/- per month respectively from the applicant. Any excess amount recovered towards these two items shall be refunded to the applicant by the respondents. 8
b) The amount of `32388/- towards excess leave and `56807/- towards 'increment put back' is held to be illegal and respondents are directed to refund such amount to the applicant.
c) The applicant, a retired railway employee, has compulsorily become a member of RELHS and he has already paid a month's salary for obtaining the medical card under it. The respondents are directed to issue him the medical card.
d) The directions at (a), (b) & (c) supra shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
e) As regards alleged inaccuracy in the calculation of DCRG and non-
payment of consolidated transfer grant, the applicant is given liberty to submit a fresh representation to the respondent within four weeks from today and the respondents are, in turn, directed to dispose of such representation within three months thereafter by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
No order as to costs.
In view of the aforesaid order, no separate order is required to be passed in M.A. No.135/2015, which is accordingly disposed of.
( K.N. Shrivastava ) Member (A) October 25, 2017 /sunil/