Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
P. K. Alagh S/O K. C. Alagh vs Union Of India Through on 27 August, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application NO.756/2010 This the 27th day of August, 2010 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) P. K. Alagh S/o K. C. Alagh, House No.4125, Sector 23A, Gurgaon (Haryana). Applicant ( By Shri A. K. Behera, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 2. Chairman, Central Water Commission, Sewa Bhawan, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066. Respondents ( By Shri Subhash Gosain, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
P. K. Alagh, working on the post of Superintending Engineer at the relevant time, the applicant herein, sought voluntary retirement under FR-56(k) contained in Chapter-IX of Fundamental Rules (Part-I General Rules), vide his request application dated 16.8.2007. Even though, his request was rejected vide order dated 14.11.2007 on the only ground of incumbency position in the department, he was yet relieved on 16.11.2007, and is admittedly no more working with the respondent department eversince. When the respondents were delaying making over of his post-retiral dues, present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 came to be filed seeking declaration that the applicant stood voluntarily retired from service with effect from 16.11.2007 and that the letter dated 14.11.2007 would be non est in the eyes of law. The applicant also seeks his post-retiral dues with interest.
2. Brief facts of the case as projected in the Application and on which there is absolutely no dispute, reveal that the applicant initially joined the Central Water Commission as Assistant Director on 30.6.1993 on being selected in the combined engineering services examination held in 1981. At the time of joining service, he was 25 years and 9 months old, his date of birth being 22.9.1957. He was promoted as Deputy Director w.e.f. 23.11.1987. In December, 1988 he was posted as Executive Engineer in Silchar and served there up to June, 1991, whereafter he was transferred to Jammu where he served up to 1995. The applicant was further promoted as Director w.e.f. 11.8.1997. From June, 2002 to September, 2006 he was sent on deputation to WAPCOS (a PSU under the Ministry of Water Resources) in public interest. On return from the said deputation, the applicant joined Farakka Barrage Project (FBP) as superintending Engineer w.e.f. 26.10.2006. The applicant applied for voluntary retirement on 30.10.2006, but the respondents intimated him that the same was not being accepted on administrative grounds. He applied for voluntary retirement twice thereafter but the respondents declined the same on both occasions. On 16.8.2007, the applicant gave notice of voluntary retirement under FR-56(k), where, it is the case of the applicant, no specific acceptance of the Government is necessary as the applicant was completing fifty years of age on 22.9.2007. The respondents vide letter dated 14.11.2007 did not accept the same citing the incumbency position in the department. It was further stated that the request of the applicant would be examined once the cadre position improved. It is not in dispute that at no given time the applicant was facing any departmental action. He was, admittedly as well, never placed under suspension. Despite rejection of his request for voluntary retirement, on expiry of three months, the applicant relinquished the charge on 16.11.2007. Copy of the certificate of relinquishment of charge has been annexed with the Application as Annexure A-4. It is the case of the applicant that the relinquishment report was duly submitted to the respondents in normal course, and the respondents also accepted the same in normal course. He also intimated the respondents to take over the possession of government accommodation allotted to him as well as to disconnect the official telephone on the same very day, i.e., 16.11.2007. Documents in that regard have been placed on records as Annexure A-5. In the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, it is the case of the applicant that once, he stood relieved the respondents were obliged to release his post-retiral dues. As the same was not done, he made several representations in that behalf, copies whereof have been annexed as Annexure A-6 (colly.). The respondents after receipt of the representations endorsed copy of a letter dated 3.2.2009 addressed to Under Secretary, Central Water Commission, to the applicant pointing out certain errors and omissions in his service book. It was pointed out therein that the Sr. Administrative Officer of Farakka Barrage Project had written to the Commission for doing the needful at their end. Copy of the said letter has also been annexed as Annexure A-7. The same was followed by the Sr. Administrative Officer, FBP vide letter dated 27.5.2009. It is the case of the applicant that he understood from the office of the respondents that apparently because of the said internal communications and alleged non-completion of the service book, the respondents had not released his superannuation and pensionary benefits, and that he remained under the impression that the respondents would release his post-retiral dues after the alleged entries as pointed out in the letter dated 3.2.2009 were completed, but more than nine months have elapsed since then and the respondents have not yet released his superannuation and pensionary benefits. He also came to understand from the office of the respondents in January, 2010 that in spite of the above communications, his post-retiral benefits have not been released because of non-acceptance of his voluntary retirement notice vide order dated 14.11.2007. It is in the circumstances as mentioned above that the applicant has filed present Original Application with the reliefs already indicated above.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have entered appearance and by filing their counter reply contested the cause of the applicant. As mentioned above, the facts are not in dispute, except the general denial with regard to relinquishment of charge by the applicant. However, during the course of arguments it is not in dispute that eversince the applicant relinquished the charge vide certificate dated 16.11.2007, he is no more in service. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to rejection of his request for voluntary retirement, no action for his absence was ever initiated against him.
4. As regards the right of the applicant to seek voluntary retirement under FR-56(k) and the only ground rejecting his application as mentioned above, there is no dispute that the applicant did have a right to seek voluntary retirement, the pre-conditions requisite for applicability of FR-56(k) being in existence, and further that the only ground for rejecting the request of the applicant cannot sustain, the matter being covered in favour of the applicant by the decision of a single Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.2468/2008 in the matter of A. K. L. Das v Union of India decided on 11.2.2009, in which reliance has been placed upon judicial precedents rendered by the Honble Supreme Court. Counsel for the respondents would, however, seek dismissal of this OA on the only ground that the same would be barred by limitation, inasmuch as the order dated 14.11.2007 has been now challenged in 2010, which would be beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Act of 1985. We would have reproduced the provisions of FR-56(k) to find out its applicability in the case of the applicant, but as mentioned above, it is not in dispute that the applicant had a right to seek voluntary retirement as the pre-conditions requisite for applicability of FR-56(k) were in existence, and there were no grounds as mentioned in the said FR on which the respondent authorities could refuse the prayer of the applicant for voluntary retirement. Since the only plea raised by the respondents in opposing the cause of the applicant is limitation, we will deal with that aspect only.
5. No doubt, it is true that the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement was rejected on 14.11.2007, but it is the positive case of the applicant that despite the order aforesaid, the respondents were dealing with his case for releasing his post-retiral dues. It is also the case of the applicant that he relinquished the charge on 16.11.2007 and on the same very day intimated the respondents to take over the possession of the accommodation allotted to him and for disconnection of the official telephone provided to him. Whereas, it is not denied that the applicant had relinquished the charge, but it is pleaded that it was unilateral action on his part. There is no denial that the applicant had intimated the respondents to take over possession of the accommodation allotted to him, and to disconnect the official telephone provided to him. It was also not denied during the course of arguments that the applicant is no more working with the respondents and no action for his absence from duty has been initiated against him. Even though, in para 4.9 of the reply it has been averred by the respondents that it is nowhere stated in the letter dated 3.2.2009 referred to above that pensionary benefits of the applicant would be released any time, but the documents placed by the applicant on records do reveal that the applicant had relinquished his charge on 16.11.2007 and the respondents were working out the pensionary benefits due to him. Reference in this connection be made to letter dated 3.2.2009 (Annexure A-7) addressed to the Under Secretary (Estt.I), Central Water Commission by Sr. Administrative Officer, Farakka Barrage Project. In the very beginning of the letter aforesaid, it is mentioned that On scrutiny the Service Book of Sh. P. K. Alagh, Superintending Engineer (Relinquished his charge on 16.11.2007), the following errors/omissions have been noticed which may please be carried out. The errors or omissions as pointed out in the letter aforesaid are mentioned as follows:
1) Service verification for the following periods have not been recorded in the Service Book, which may kindly be got done.
(a) 01.06.02 to 08.09.02 (b) 13.07.94 to 05.03.95.
2) Necessary entries like joining/releasing from Brahmaputra Board & WAPCOS are not recorded in the Service Book.
3) Entry regarding subscription towards CGEGIS since joining has not been done which may kindly be carried out.
4) There is no acceptance of various nomination/declaration which were submitted by Sh. Alagh on 17.11.98 & 11.11.2002 respectively.
5) Leave account has not been signed by the Under Secretary though official stamp has been used.
6) No entry of GPF account & Nomination in the Service Book prior to joining FBP.
7) In the leave account (Earned Leave) for the period from 01.01.89 to 31.12.89 shown total 172 days in place of 162 days which is required to be rectified duly signed.
8) Police Verification and Medical fitness report have not been kept in the Service Book.
9) Nomination for family pension is not available in the Service Book. There cannot be any doubt that the respondents had accepted the relinquishment report of the applicant and were working out his post-retiral dues, as otherwise there was no need whatsoever to mention as regards errors or omissions in his service book. On 27.5.2009, Sr. Administrative Officer, FBP addressed yet another letter to the Under Secretary (Estt.I), Central Water Commission, which reads as follows:
Kindly refer to this office letter No. cited on the above mentioned subject and requested to please return the Service Book of Sh. P. K. Alagh, Superintending Engineer, Farakka Barrage Project after doing the needful at the earliest. Reference in the letter aforesaid is to the letter dated 3.2.2009 referred to above.
6. We do not find that the respondents have come up with truth. Their stand that the applicant was not relieved or that his relinquishment was unilateral action on his part, or that the respondents were not dealing with his post-retiral dues, is incorrect, as would be evident from the records. We may only mention at this stage that the respondents are not denying letters dated 3.2.2009 and 27.5.2009. All that they are saying is that the said letters did not contain anything which may show that the applicant would be made over his post-retiral dues. The very fact that the applicant was actually not working eversince 16.11.2007 and no action for his absence pursuant to rejection of his request for voluntary retirement has been taken against him, would clinch the issue that the respondents were taking it as if the applicant had been relieved and were working out his post-retiral dues, but ultimately turned around to say that since his request for voluntary retirement had been rejected, he would not be entitled for the post-retiral dues. The applicant was certainly at least under the impression that the respondents were working out his post-retiral dues. In the circumstances as mentioned above, we do not find the present Application to be barred by limitation.
7. In view of the discussion made above, this Original Application is allowed. Order dated 14.11.2007 rejecting the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement is set aside and direction is issued to the respondents to work out the post-retiral dues of the applicant as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a month from today. Inasmuch as, it appears to us that the applicant has been denied his post-retiral dues on wholly unjustified grounds and the present case is also being contested just for the sake of contesting it, the applicant would be entitled to interest on his post-retiral dues. We think the interest of justice would be served if the respondents are directed to pay six per cent interest on the post-retiral dues of the applicant. We order accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant shall also be entitled to cost of the litigation, which we quantify at Rupees ten thousand.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/