Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Kiran Lal vs Union Of India on 13 July, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 3813/2010 New Delhi this the 13th day of July, 2011 Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) Shri Kiran Lal, S/o Late Shri Sohan Lal, Aged about 64 years, A 135 & 138, Gulab Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59 Applicant (By Advocate Shri K.K. Patel ) VERSUS 1. Union of India, Through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, State Entry Road, New Delhi. 3. The Chief Administrative Officer, (Construction), Northern Railway, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Respondents (By Advocates Shri Chand Kiran for respondents No 1& 2 and Shri R.L.Dhawan for respondent No.3) O R D E R Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A):
The grievance of the Applicant herein is that he has not been paid his pension and other post-retirement dues on the basis of the last pay drawn. He is seeking direction to the Respondents to re-fix his pension on the basis of the last pay drawn by him.
2. The Applicant retired from the post of Permanent Way Supervisor in the grade of Rs. 4500-7000 (pre-revised). The last basic pay, which the Applicant was drawing was rupees 15,830/-(revised).
3. Shri R.L. Dhawan, learned counsel for the Respondents has opposed the cause of the Applicant on the ground that the OA is barred by limitation because the Applicant retired on superannuation on 31.07.2007, when he was paid his post-retirement dues. The OA has been filed after three years of the order of payment of pension and is, therefore, not maintainable. I reject this argument because, if the contention of the applicant is correct, he would gain increased pension. By fixing his pension wrongly the Respondents have caused for him a continuing cause of action, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in M R Gupta V. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628.
4. The other contention of the learned counsel for the Respondents is that the Applicant would be eligible for pension in terms of the last pay drawn by him in the cadre post. He would rely for this on the order of this Tribunal in OA number 2109/1997, Shri D.K. Sahni Vs. Union of India, decided on 24.12.1998, in which it was held that:
8. Shri Sawhney has sought to interpret the word cadre occurring the aforesaid Rule 1303 (1) IREC Vol. II to mean any cadre, and has contended that the post the applicant has held in the office of the Chief Project Manager (PRS) also belongs to a cadre, but a plain reading of Rule 1303(1) makes it clear that the word cadre is used in the sense of particular cadre to which the applicant actually belongs, which in this case I see is under Delhi Division and not in the Office of the C.P.M. Ajmer Singhs case (Supra) relied upon by applicants counsel is also distinguishable on facts, because in that case applicant retired on superannuation from the post to which he had been transferred on ad hoc basis and received promotion, while in the present case applicant went on to be absorbed in CRIS. For these very reasons Respondents letter dated 18.9.86 (Ann. AA1) which refers to a case of one Shri Arora is also distinguishable on facts from the one before me.
9. Under the circumstances respondents cannot be said to have committed any irregularity, illegality, impropriety or infirmity in calculating applicants settlement dues on the pay at the rate of Rs. 1950/- p.m. which he would have been drawn as E-cum-R.S. in the scale of Rs.1600-2660 on his voluntary retirement on 30.11.93.
5. The learned counsel for the Applicant, however, brought to my notice the judgement of the Honourable Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) number 2057/1999 in Shri Darshan Kumar Sahni Vs. Union of India, which was decided in appeal against the order of this Tribunal in OA number 2109/1997, quoted above. In this case the applicant therein was on deputation to an organisation under the Railways called Centre for Railways Information System (CRIS). The applicant moved to CRIS on deputation on 16th of February 1989, while retaining his lien on his substantive post. Eventually, he sought voluntary retirement from Northern Railway with effect from 30th November 1993 and sought permanent absorption with CRIS. His request was acceded to. The Railway Board extended the period of deputation of the applicant up to 30th November 1993. He was permanently absorbed in the above-mentioned organisation from 1st December 1993 in the grade of Rs. 2000-3500. He requested the respondent for settlement of his pension and other post-retirement dues on the basis of the last pay of Rs. 2450/- in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200. The Railways, however, took a view that he would have been liable to be paid pension and other post-retirement dues on the basis of the last pay that he would have been entitled to draw, had he continued to serve in his parent cadre in the Northern Railway in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660 at the time of his seeking voluntary retirement, that is, 30th November 1993. The Honourable Delhi High Court held that:
15. In our view, therefore, the service rendered by the petitioner with CRIS on deputation cannot be considered to be foreign service for the purpose of the pension rules.
16. We are also not impressed by the argument that merely because the petitioner continued to hold a lien in his parent cadre, it disentitled him from seeking the computation of his pensionary and other settlement dues on the basis of the last pay actually drawn by him while on deputation with CRIS, immediately prior to his voluntary retirement from the Railways and absorption with CRIS. As aforesaid, there is no basis to support this submission in the Code or the Pension Rules, which, in fact emphasis the relevance of the last drawn pay, irrespective of it being on a substantive post or on an ad hoc post.
6. The present OA is squarely covered by the above judgement of the Delhi High Court. The OA is, therefore, allowed and the Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension and other post-retirement dues of the Applicant on the basis of the last pay drawn in the post of Permanent Way Supervisor. The pension and other post-retirement dues would be re-fixed and the arrears paid to the Applicant within two months of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.
( L.K. Joshi ) Vice Chairman (A) sk