Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
T. Basavaiah vs The Chief Postmaster General, The ... on 10 July, 2007
ORDER Bharati Ray, Member (J)
1. Heard Mr. A. Tata Rao, learned Counsel for the applicant and Ms. N. Shakti, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The applicant is working in the office of the Assistant Engineer, Postal Sub-Division, Vijayawada. He had approached this Tribunal earlier in OA No. 760/2003 for a direction to the respondents to regularise his services with effect from the date of regularisation of one Sri K. Ramachander who is junior to the applicant or an earlier date as per his seniority. The said OA was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take into account the service rendered by the applicant during the period of his minority and regularise his services with effect from the date he is entitled or from the date of regularisation of services of Respondent No. 5 whichever is earlier. It is contended by the applicant that in pursuance of the said direction of this Tribunal, the respondents have issued Office Order bearing No. 9(11)/PCDH/2006 dated 31.3.2006 to the effect that "the services of Sri T. Basavaiah, Beldar have been regularised w.e.f. 1.11.2001 instead of 2.1.2004."
3. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi introduced a new pension scheme for those appointed to Central Govt. service on or after 1.1.2004. It is the case of the applicant that the respondents applied the new pension scheme to him assuming that he reported for duty on 2.1.2004 and accordingly have been recovering contribution from him from 1.1.2004. The respondents have also been recovering arrears of contribution in addition to the current contribution every month. The respondents refunded the accumulations in the General PF Account of the applicant. It is contended by the applicant that in accordance with the orders issued by the Executive Engineer dated 31.3.2006, the services of the applicant have been regularised w.e.f. 1.11.2001 as Beldar (Group 'D' cadre). Therefore, by virtue of this order, the applicant is a regular employee in the Central Government w.e.f. 1.11.2001 and hence he is governed by the provisions of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the new pension scheme introduced w.e.f. 1.1.2004 is not applicable to the applicant. The applicant, therefore, submitted a representation on 2.6.2006 requesting the authorities to apply the old pension scheme as applicable to those who joined prior to 1.1.2004 i.e. CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 but the respondents have not acted upon his representation and, therefore, he has approached this Tribunal for a direction to the respondents to apply the provisions in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 in his case as the applicant is not to be governed by the new pension scheme introduced w.e.f. 1st January, 2004 and to refund the contributions recovered from the applicant in excess under the new pension scheme.
4. When the matter was called for today, learned Counsel for the applicant has taken me to paras 10 (1),(2) & (3) of the counter reply filed by the respondents which read as under:
10(1) Recovery of GPF subscription at the rate of 6% of basic pay with effect from the pay and allowances of the applicant from the month of March, 2007.
(2) As regards recovery of monthly contribution to NPS, by the employee & employer is stopped from the month of March, 2007.
(3) As regards refund of contributions accumulated under the NPS scheme, since NPS account is centrally maintained by the nodal office at Delhi, the matter has been referred to the Directorate for clarification and further instructions. Suitable action will be taken on receipt of instructions from the Directorate.
5. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that since the respondents have rectified their mistake, the only grievance left is for refund of the amount recovered by the respondents in excess. To that extent, I find from paras 10(1), (2) & (3) extracted above that the matter is under consideration. That being the position, I find that the grievance of the applicant has already been redressed so far as the settlement of his pension is concerned. Therefore, this OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to refund the amount recovered by the respondents in excess to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.