Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Pranabananda Dash vs D/O Post on 17 April, 2023
i QANe. 2A Q8 Ef S888 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK 0.4. No. 260 /00812 of 2019 LVR Reserved on: 28.03.2083 Pronounced orm 17.04.2023 PORAM: HON'BLE MB. PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBERIA) Franabaranda Dash, aged about 69 years, S/o. late Lingara} Dash, presently residing at Ghantikis, Rhubaneswar, Dist-Rhurda-75 1 003. Group-C. wood pplicant By the Advocate(s}-Mr. D.P.Dhalasamant, Counsel -VERSUS- 1. Union of India, represented through its Director General of Posts, Govt. of India, Ministry af Communication, os Department of Pasts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110 O01, 2. Chief Post Master General, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda-751 G01. 3. Director of Accounts [Postall, Mahanadi Vihar, Cuttack~ 293 O04, 4, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhubaneswar Division, Dist-Khurda-753 G01, S Sentor Postmaster, Bhubaneswar G.PLO. 751004, oo RESPGTCENES PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, ME bo ThA Ne. S60 NS af SAS Ry the Advocate(s}-Ms. $.B.Das, Counsel ORDER
In this third round of litigation, the applicant has sought t: quash the order dated 18062019 (A/11) rejecting his prayer for disbursement of lump sur compensation of Rs. 1.83,923,/- in Yeu of the disability pension and te direct the respondents to pay the himp sum compensation towards the canltalized value of disability pension.
=>
2. Indisputably and uncontrovertibly, the applicant, while working as Postal Assistant in Suryanagar NDTSO, Bhubaneswar was severely infured in the parcel bomb blast that eccurred on 03.01.2002 while was on duty, inwhich he lost one hand and one leg.
2(if}) He was admitted In the SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack where he remained under treatment from 03.01.2002 to 13.10.2008, As per the advice of the doctor, he remained on rest fram 14.10.2003 to 20.10.2008. Thereafter, be remained under treatment in NINTAR Qlatpur, Cuttack for fixation of artificial limbs from 21.11.2003 to Supe SNe. SEO ANIOTS of 2029 a(iil} He reported to duty with all medical certificates and produced the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board of Khurda, Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar dated 01.06.2004 certifying him to be "FO 79% disabled. The authority concerned, after due application af mind and upun consideration of his disability condition, retained him in service, Leave was sanctioned In his favour for the total period of two years, four months and 24 days as per the provision of Disability Leave and Hospital Leave contained in CCS (Leave) Rues, 1972 wide order dated 04.03.2009 (A/2). While he was working as PA, he retired from Service on SOSL2O10 on attaining the age of superannuation and superannuation pension was sanctioned in his favour vide PPO No. CK-
GLH7-P. 2liv}) Record alsa revealed that on 15.02.2018, he submitted an application for sanction of disability pension in his favour, which was forwarded to the office of the Director of Accounts (Postal) Cuttack vide letter dated OF .OS.2013. The office af the Director of Accatunts vide letter dated 25.05. 20153 advised the Sr. Postmaster, Bhubaneswar OPO to examine the case of the applicant as per extant rules/euidelines gouges . we af OA Ney PHYO T OF F874 sy which was duly intimated to the Applicant vide letter dated 1ST L2015. it appears from record, the Applicant submitted a representation dated O4d12 2018 te the Chief Postmaster General, Qdisha Cirele, Bhubaneswar. Thereafter, he approached this Tribunal in OA.No.836/2014, which was disposed of an 24. TL2O14 with direction to the respondents to consider his representation. In colapliance eto the order of this Tribunal, respondent No.2 considered and rejected the representation for sanction of disability pension vide order dated 22412015, 2{v} Ivis further revealed from records that the applicant submitted an application on 27.01.2015 for sanction of capitalized value of disabllity pension in Neu of disability pension. The SSPO examined the claim of the applicant with reference to the rules and came to the conclusion that the applicant is eligible te be paid lamp sum compensation of the amount equal to the capitalized value of disability pension in lieu of disability pension to be determined with reference the commutation table in force on the date vide Rule 9/3) of CCS (Extraerdinary Pension) Rules and, ise GA No. Sab SOUR Ag ak SETS accordingly, the SSPO, Bhubaneswar intimated the Sr. Accounts Officer (Pension! Cuttack vide letter dated 30.01.2015 (4/6) as under:
"That the Appointing AutherRty is delegated powers to sanction Awards under the relevant Extraordinary Pension rales.
In view of admissibility fi) Where as the Ex-official sustained an Infury due to an accident while on duty which made him permanently disabled.
fi} Where as the permanent disabiligy was assessed by the Medical Board as 75% (iii} Where as the Ex- official has been retained in Service with less ardous nature of duties;
The Appointing Authority Le. the Head of the Division conceded that the disablernent is due to Gavernment Service and has decided to grant an award under the said rules. in terms af Rule 3-A of CCS (Extraordinary) Pension Rules 1939.
Accordingly the Ex-official is eligible to be granted Lumpsum compensation equal to the capitalized value of disability pension in leu of Disability Pension amounting Rs 183823-(Rs Qne Lakh eighty three thousand eight hundred bwenty three} only.
Necessary Authority may kindly be issued for payment at Bhubaneswar GPO"
3. The Sr. Accounts Officer (Pensian} vide letter dated 28.05.2015 (A/7)} intimated as under:
"In this connection, it is stated that although Rule-9 of cestExtraordinary Pension) Rules provides thet if a Govt.
> & CANS SHO MORE af FOL4 servant is retained in service in spite of disablement, he shall be pal a compensation m lamp sum in Heu of Disability pension, Rule-6(1) of the said Rules provides that no award shall be made in respect of an injury sustained more than Ave years before the date of application, Moreover, Rule? of the said Rules, prior te its amendment on 15.02.2011 published as SO410(B) in the Gazette of India dated TS.0e2014, provides that no award shall be made under these rules except with the sanction af the President.
Shri Peanabananda Dash sustained an injury on OS.01T2002 and he was retained in Govt. service ON his retirement on superannuation on SGA 02010. Ne preferred his claim far fumpsum award in his re presentation dated 27.0 VSOTS, Le. after a period of 13 years.
As the claim is nether filling the provisions of cS{Extraordinary Pension) Rules nor the sanction for such award issued by your office is in order, the application of the claimant is retur ned herewith."
4. 'The above letter was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 21.07.2015 (4/8). Being aggrieved, the applic ant Med OA No. 8023/2015 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of on 27.02.2 O19, operative part of the order is produced hereunder we This Tribunal considered the rival submissions in the light of f the instructions on the subject. In this connection, i is fo be noted that the order passed by Respondent No.2. Le, CPMG, Odisha Circle dated 22.01.2015 is in relation to Disablligy Pension, which according to him, is not admissible . whey ERRELY at HOTS Oa BSS SOOH TS af RODS since the applicant had not been discharged from the Government service prematurely prior to his normal retirement due to disability and as the applicant has not sustained any loss in his normal superannuation pension due to the disability which is required to be compensated in shape of Disability Pension. The applicant in this O.A. has however, scnight for an alternate relief, Le, to direct the respondents to grant him the capltalized value of disability pension in Heu of disability pension to the tune of Rs.1,88,823/-. In view of this, in my considered opinion, the order dated 22.01.2015 passed by the CPMG will not stand In the way for considering to the alternative relief as prayed for by the applicant. Therefore, the Tribunal confines its consideration to the lump sum compensation equal to the capitalized value of disability pension in Heu of disability pension as sanctioned by the 5SPOs, Bhubaneswar vide A/10 dated 30.01.2015. Perusal of A/10 and A/1i issued by the Appointing Authority and the Senior Accounts Officer[ Pension) respectively makes it aniply clear that there has been no disagreement behween them with regard to entitlement of compensation in lump sum in Neu of disability pension in faveur of the applicant. Therefore, the Instructions contained In Finance Ministry's OM dated 20.02.1966 cited supra, In my considered opinion, satisies the conditions stipulated therein. The point on which Senior Accounts OMcer [Pension] has raised an objection is regarding submission of claim for lump sum award after about a period of 13 years of the date of accident. On being pointed out, lsarned counsel for the applicant craved liberty of this Tribunal to submit a representation to the Respondent Nod and accordingly, prayed for direction to be issued to the said LD 3 s QANo RMBORTS of 2OV9 Respandent No4 to consider and dispose of the same In accordance with rules finstrections governing the subject.
8 Having regard to the above, liberty Is granted to the applicant to make a detailed representation to Respondent Not within a period of two weeks hence and accordingly. Respondent No is directed to consider and pass an appropriate orders within a period of thirty days fram the date of receipt of such representation"
5. The applicant enclosing copy of the order submitted representation on 09.04.2017 % ty the SSPO, Bhubaneswar Division fA/1O), which was rejected and communicated to the applicant vide order dated 13.06.2019 (A/ 11). extract af which is quoted as under:
"Phe Applicant, In obedience fo Order of Hon'ble CAT, Cuttack Rench, Cuttack as stated above, submitted an application on- dated 09.04.2019 requesting to grant of capitalized value of disability pension In eu of disability pension. The same application was received by this office on dated 10.04.2019. The representation dated O4,04.2019 of the Applicant was given a threadbare consideration in light of the judgement af the Hon'ble CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. The Rule-9 af the cos(extraardinary Pension}, Rules provides that oa government servant is retained in service in spite of disablement, he shall be paid a compensation in lump sum in Hew of disability pension. The Ruleaed) of the said rules further provides that no award shall be made in respect of any injury sustained more than five years before the date af application. In the instant case, the Applicant sustained an injury on 08.01.2002 making him disable by 75% and despite SAN g SAN, 260 /QUGTR of V9 that he was retained in government service in his retirement on 30.11.2010. He preferred his claim for hinyp sur award in his representation dated 27.01.2015 Le. after a period of 12 % years. As the claim does not full the time stipulation provided in, CCS(Extraordinary Pension) Rules, the claim of the Applicant is net tenable, In view of the above, the prayer in representation dated OF.O42019 of the Appian' being cevoid of merit and having te na force of law behind it is dispassinnately considered and rejected"
Reing aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this QA with the prayers mentioned above.
6 The respondents contested the case of the applicant by reiterating the prounds taken in the order of rejection that the applicant sustained injury on 03.01.2002, despite his disability, he was retained in service and he superannuated on 30.11.2010. But he preferred his claim for lump sum compensation on 27.01.2015, Le after a period of 19 years. As the claim does not fulfill the time stipulation provided under Rule 6(1), Che applicant is net entitled te the rellef clabmed in the 0.4.
Y. Aceording to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, as per the rules, ifa Government servant is retained in service In spite of disablement, an abligation is casted on the authorities to pay compensation in lump sum a OAR. BRONTE OF SS in Heu of the disability pension suo moto and it is not for the Govt, servant to apply for grant of such lump sum compensation In Neu of disability pension. It has been submitted that when applicant was retained In service despite 759 of his disability after due application of mind, as per the Inbuilt provision, he should have been pald the lump sum compensation within a reasonable time considering that where the rule provides for grant of the benefits, the authority conceriied should not wait for the employee concerned to stake his claim, Therefore, the SSPO In his order had rightly justified the grant of lump sum compensation. The Accounts Wing of the department however objected by applying the provision under Rule 6{i) of the Rules wherein it has heen provided that "ne award" shall be made in respect ofan infury sustained more than five years before the date of application, According to the Ld Counsel for the applicant, the lump sum payment was by way of compensation and is not an award, hence not covered under Rule 6 {i} of the Rules. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to the relief claimed in the QA.
Ft DAR 260 Sete of S89 R. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents by placing reliance on the very provision of Rule 6(1} of the Rules submits that consideration of grant of "Award" is subsequent to a claim which is required to be filed by Govt, employee In respect of an injury sustained not more than five years before the date of application, Since the applicant claimed the benefit of compensation in terms of the Rule 9 of the Rules beyond such period as provided under Rule 6(1), he has forfeited his right to get the same and the same has rightly been apposed and rejected requiring ne Interference by this Tribunal. % Heard the arsuments and perused the records vis a vis Rules.
10. The objection raised by Audit Wing is that although Rule 9 (4) of CCS (Extraordinary Pension} Rules provides that if a Govt. servant is retained in service in spite of disablement, he shall be paid a compensation In lump sum In Heu of disability pension, Rule-AG} of the said rules pravides that no award shall be made In respect of an Injury sustained more than five years before the date of application. Purther Rule-d of the said Rules pravides that no award shall be made under these rules except with the sanction of the President. Therefore, this fad ChA Ne. SEO AHS of 2048 pete 'Tribunal is to examine as to how fur the decision of the Audit Wing that the applicant is not entitled to lumpsum compensation by application of Rule 6 and Rule 4 of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules Is correct.
Therefore, if is necessary to extract the rules as above Rule 4 of CCSCEOPY Rules, D9s8:
"4. No awa rd shall be made under these rules except with che sanctian af the President."
Purther, Ride 6 of the Rules is as under:
"s. The limit for award No award shall be made In respect of -
i} an injury sustained mere than five years before the date of application, or tH} death which cecurred more Than seven year {a} after the injury dec to violence or accident was sustained, or ib} after the Government servant was madically regarted gs anfit for duty on: account of the di isease af which he dled."
Rule Gof CCS ( a Rules, 1939:
Bsabil ity pension: in ferns of aad aan sation ja heres of s :
& the percentage of he Medival Authority concarne: red.
ac e rou Sert per' cod Led GS. Ne, SHO AIST S OFS wnexed. The quant gain of ais: ability p ;
sabi shall be, "proportionately lower". (The minima and the. xing, River: ia SCHEQULE TL are applica ble anly for arriving at the f monthly disability pension far ¢ cet BS men disability. 3 and are: at apuiicade fr respect of es ant, er cent}, Af the Government service is 8 faocauat of sacl disablement, and further | if "the peré ontage aft 'his | permanent Aisability as certified by the Medic: af Authority is not less than GO % His monthly disability pension shall be refated to:
family pension adarissible te die whdow (in case he bad die | of haing disal pte i} iu the nanner faid down in GM. No. 23 (25 )5 TA} -Pr TY, dated the 20th faruary, LOFS, as indicated below -
f 'the « ey ny ule yer "held a S permane sHe pensionable post and is) invalidesl Pooarded out from service, ag a result of disability: attributable Co service, after rendering ten years service, he: shall luc given, apart from the normal fevalid pension 2 ander the: 'CCS (Pension) Rules, 1072, the amount of ii sability pension as: 4s admissible under the CCS (EOP) Rules, subject to the: 'condition thet the sum total of the invalid penston plus the:
aMsability pension shall sot be less than the widow's (fanily 'pensian umder the CCS (EGP) Roles; and :
i Joy @ eligible for dk ability pensiin cunder the € ees eor) i ules is favalided / boarded ont from service before.
'putting in ten years service, he does nat get any invalid pensian! that gets only service gratuity under the C US {Peasion} Roles, lOvE. Apart fram such grabuty, he shall be ¢ given such aroun af disability pension as is admissible under the EOP Rules 'sabject te the condition thet the surm-tofal of the par nsion | juivalent of such arataity under the CCS {Pension} Rules, a 72, plus the disability pension as is admissible under the CCS, fRQP) Rules shall net be less than the widow's (antily) pension | nder the COS (EOP) Ralss.
3 3g y x Q vermment servant is rete ined in service in ment, hy shall be paid a crampans: ation int haul Sun us of the disability pension) on adrnisaible to him in accordance wi 'af this Rae hy arrhdng at the cap of su such disahilit pension with peference. to te Coromatat thon Table, in fares fr on time to Cine, :
wads An MANa. ROHS of B19 Entitlement of lump sum due to disability in Heu of disabtlity pension as per Rule 9 (4) of the Rules, ibid, is not in dispute. According eo the Audit, the incident was of the year 2002 and "competent authority to sanction such award" prior to its amendment as per Rule 4 is the President. Thus, as per the audit wing's objection dated 39.05.2015, the Sr. SPO is not competent to ayprove the lump sum. Bat, on examination, ibis seen that the amendment of 20 Ti. as per proviso to Rule 2, provides that this rule fs applicable to Govt. servants appointed before OL 2004. His also seen that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance issued an OM bearing No. FLOCIS}-EV(A]/66 dated 26.02.1966 conferring power and authority on the Appointing Authority to sanction such compensation with a rider that such sanction em be made by the Appointing Authority where there is no disagreement and where there is disagreement, between various authorities or where the ¢ romipernsation 1s proposed to be granted on Xx gratia basis, the matter is to be referred to the Ministry of Finance as usual. Going by the records visea-vis the orders of the Senior Superintendent and Audit Wing, { is established that there is no disagreement regarding the entifement of the Applicant te the lump ys TA Bes, CHO MOT of NU sum. This aspect has also been settled by the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 27.03.2019 In OA 8038/2015. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the aforesaid OM No. FASCiS)-E.VEA}/66 dated 26.02.1966 and the applicability af amended provision of Rules In 2011 to the present case has escaped tre notice of the Audit Wing and had it been looked fnte, they could not have questioned the autharity competent to sanction, Ti. Now the question left to answer is relating to the thne Nmit provided in the Rules. According to the Audit Wing, since the applicant submitted application after more than seven years he was not entitled to the lump sum award. Therefore, ff Is necessary ta look Into whether passage of time would forfelt the rights of the Applicant to get such hump sum compensation, which he is otherwise entitled te, under Rules, and as to whether it is for the applicant to apply for such disability pension or it is for the department to initiate and take step for such approval. It cannot be overruled that Insofar as monetary payrnent, if it is accrued as per rules, is concerned, passage of time cannot take away the night of an employee to get the same, As stated above, Sub Rule 4 of nee Sas DA No. SEIS af 2829 Rule 9 of Rules, 1989 envisages that if the Government servant is retained In service in spite of such disablement, he shall be paid a compensation In lump sum (in Heu of the disability pensinn) on the basis of disability pension admissible to iNNm in accordance with the gxy" F re provisions of sub-rule (2) of this Rule, by arriving at the capitalized value of such disability pension with reference to the Commutation Table, In force from time to time. Por an understanding a reading of Rule 13 is necessary and the same Is extracted below:
"13. Procedures to be faNowed by the Head of alftcedepartarent while considering the case of Extraordinary pension pertaining fo affected amployees, (13 Te respect of satiers of procedure, olf awards umler these rules are Subject fo any procedure rales reiali ig to > ordinary Leen for the time heing in force, to ihe extent thal s are not Incansisient with these rabes.
if} When a claim for any disability pension or family pension arises, the Head of the ONfice or the Department in which the iijured or the deceased Government servant was employed will forward the claim through the usual channel to the Government of India with the iMlowing documents he anpheahoa forth i in 2 SCH ene wen O.ANe. OORT of LOLS > @Y an injury of Jovernnient servant sho has contracted a diacaa sc A medical report it Pore : of ts Ferme set forth in SCHEDULE PV. In the cass eed Caivernment servant a medical report as death ar reliable evidence as to the actual e of death Gf the Government servart fost his éireumstances that a medical repart cannet a report of the Aceanats CHYleer concerned as to whether an award is admasihfe ander the rules and, if a. af what amor.
(3) Where the Government are s atigiie don the evidence placed Gefore them by a Government servant im regpect et wham a medical repert for the purpose of grant of disabilioy or other extraordinary pension has been recervedd by them, of the passibiiity of an error of judgement in the decision of the Medical Board which exarmimed him, the Chevernment may direot a second Medical Board consisting of members other than thase who camstituted the first Medical Board to cxamine the officer ani subnut a report to the Government In the matter ¢ pension shall be granted to the officer in geecaddance with the decision of the second Medical Board."
The above Rule 13 casts a responsibility on the Head of the Department/Office to forward the claim through usual channel with the application in Form A. The claim for the lump sum in Heu of disability pension In this case arese when the autherity decided to retain the applicant in service despite his disability. lt was the duty of the Head of the Department/OMMce to get the application in Form A from the applicant and forward the same.
is QAO THOAMGLS oF L019 This becomes amply clear fram the amendment to the rules carried out in 2023, which is applicable in the ins vant' case as per the its applicability provision, which provides that employees COV ered under ccs{Pension} Rules "21 and this provides that employees appointed on ar before SLAS 2021 wow td he covered under Rule 4 4) provides that "it shall not be necessary for the government servant or the fanuly to submit any application for grant of disabtlity pension or family pension under these rues". Further under Rule 4 (5) of the 2023 Rules, it is clearly stated that it shall be the responsibility of the Head of Office ta consider each case of death or disability due to injury caused ta a government servant hased on the findings of the Medical Board and fo take necessary action {6 gubmit the case to the competent authority, within three months of the date af receipt of the report of the medical board, for a decision In regs rd te grant of disabliity pension oF family pension under these rules. It is also provided that the claim for disability pension or family pension under these rules shall not be rejected on account of any delay on the part of the Head of office in submission of the case ta the competent authority for a decision in regard to grant of disability pension of far fly pension under these rHigs.
$8 Gd fe. BOOS ES af RAG eae)
12. Frem bare perusal of both the Rules Le. 1939 and 2023, it is clearly found that it is not necessary an the part o fthe applicant to make ~ claim but it is the responsibility of the Head of Office to process his case within a period of three months, {t is further clear that applicant's right to lump sum compensation In Hew of disability pension could not be extinguished because of delay on the part of Head of Office for processing his case. The applicant submitted the medical certificate hased on which the authority considered and took a conscious decision to retain him in service and, while continuing in service, he retired from govt, service on reaching the age ef superannuation. Therefore, the authority concerned should have taken appropriate step for payment of lump sum compensation in Heu of disability pension then and there. However, he submitted the representation justifying his claim, which was rightly considered by his appolnting authority but the same was objected to by the accounts wing.
18. Ttalso can safely be concluded that the limp sum compensation fs in He of disability pension and obviously and axiomatically i comes ey within the meaning and connotation of 'pension' and, as a consequence, os 20 QA No. BHO PUONLE of 218 by applying the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SNBhanrale Vs. UOT & Ors. (AIR 1997 SC 27), there could be ne intricacy for this Tribunal to hold that the pensionary benefits being a recurring i nature, the bar of limitation cannot be pleaded by the authorities.
14, Similar matter came Up far consideration before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 3267 of 2009 where the Hon'ble High Court after examining the provision af Rule & af the :
Central Civil Services {Extra-ordinary pension} Rules, 1989 yis a vis Rule 88 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 vide arder dated 10.38.2010 came to the conclusion as wader * A perusal of the above Rule would shaw that i does mandate the claim te be submitted under Rules, 1 938 within a period of & years fom the date of sustaining the injury. However Rule 88 of Rules, 197%, which admittedly is applicable to the case of the petitioner as well, reads as follows :-
sc Power to relax. Where any Ministry or Department of the Government is satisfied that the operation of any at these rules, Causes undue hardship in any particular case, the Ministry or Department, 3s the case may be, may, by arder for reasons te be recorded in writing, dispense with or yelas the requirements of that rule te such extent and subject ta such exceptions and ecanditions ag if may +s Ra he EE EAGT? REED al O.dNa. SOE AGE af SL9 consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.
Provided that no such order shall he made except with the cancurrence of the {Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms).
A perusal of this Rule would show that where the Ministry or the Department of the Government is satisfied that the operation of any of these Rues, causes undue hardship ina particular case, the provisions af that particular Rule could be dispensed with or relaxed depending upon the case in hand. The Rule itself provides that In extra ordinary cases of hardship, all or any of the provisions of the Rule could be dispensed with or relaxed depending upon the requirement. The stand of the respondents that Rule 6 of Rules, 1939 mandates a period and, therefore, cannot be relaxed, is totally overlooking the provisions, as contained under Rule 88 of Rules, 1972.
The facts and circumstances of the present case, as have been enumerated herein above which have not been disputed by the respondents, clearly spell out a case, which is of an extra ordinary hardship. This position was admitted and accepted by respondents, the competent authority, wader whom the petitioner was performing his duties. In this view of the matter, the stand of the Pay and Account Office helding that Rule & of Rules, 19389 was mandatory and Rule 88 of Rules, 1972 could be invoked, is totally misplaced. Rule 88 of Rules, 1939 has been provided primarily to take care of cases af undue hardship, in which category, the case of the petitioner would fall, SXEXNX NENKESXN xxxxnxx A direction is issued to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Rule 88 as provided under Rules, 1972 within a period of three months' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The decision so bd ina BAR. 260 ORTS of EES taken by the respondents, be canveyed to the petitioner forthwith."
iS. Similar matter also came up before the Ho'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Ex-Naik Run Singh Versus Commandant, 54 Battalion, Border Security Farce, C/o $6 APO and another (CWP No. 16310 of 1998) wherein thely Lordships after taking inte consideration the decision of the Han'hie Apex court in case of SR. Bhanrale Versus Union of india and others (AIR 1 997 SC 27) held th rat the pensionary benefits being recurring in nature and there is a recurring cause of action, the bar of Kimitation cannot be pleaded by the Government of India when the department itself had defaulted in making payments promptly and the decision in the case of Jaswant Singh Vs. UOI referred to above vis a vis the rule position.
16, In such a circumstances whether the rejection of the caim is justified came into consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No, 3267 of 2009 Uaswant Singh Versus Union of India and others) decided on 10.38.20: 10 wherein the Non'ble High Court after taking into consideration Rule 6 af the Central Civil + services (Extra-ordinary pensio n} Roles, 1939 vis a vis Rule 88 of CCS tay ty OANa. DE 00812 af dad g (Pension) Rules, 1972 dj rected the Respondents to re-conshler the claim of the petitioner by Invoking the provisions of Rule 8& as provided under Rules 1973 of the Rules 1939 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
iv, tm the present case >, The claim of the applicant is also for payrnent of lump som compensation in Hew ar Usability pension, which comes under the purview of recurring cause af actan and, thus, rejection of his aim by applying Rule 6 is held to be bad as per the law discussed above. In view of the fact as discussed above, that it was the responsibility of the Head of Office to fake necessary action for grant of disability pension within a Ume frame and also that the Cases Cannat be rejected on the ground of delay, the case of the applicant rejected solely an the ground of delay is bad In law,
28. In view of the discussions made above, it is held that the ACCOUNTS wing without examining the rule pasit Juns, as discussed above, objected to the proposal of the SSPo throwing Pac the blame on the applicant, which at no stretch of jr sagination can be said to be legally tenahie . Ris seen that the SSPO vide order J OUGZ019 (ASI 1) rejected erant of 24 CLAN. DER ORE af 2549 compensation based on the letter of the Accents wing dated 28.05.2015 (A/7) and, as discussed the said objection af the Accounts wing being held to be not legally sustainable, the order of rejection dated 13.06.2019 {A/11) is hereby quashed and thereby the order passed by the SSPO, Bhubaneswar Division dated ALOL201S (A/6) is directed tu be implemented. The entire drill fs directed to be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16, The DA is allowed. Parties to bear thelr own costs.
, "pRAMOD KUMAR Di DAs) MEMBER (ADMN.} RAPS