Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Mukesh Kumar Chauhan vs M/O Water Resources on 3 May, 2024
O.A.No. 200/00535/2018 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR Original Application No.200/00535/2018 Jabalpur, this Friday, the 3rd day of May, 2024 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Mukesh Kumar Chauhan, S/o Shri Gandharv Guru Chauhan, Aged about 62 yeears, Retired Chief Engineer & Secretary, Narmada Control Authority, Indore (M.P.), R/o AG-266, Scheme NO. 74, Vijay Nagar, Indore (M.P.)
-Applicant (By Advocate - Shri Manoj Sharma, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Ms. Anuja Sharma) Versus
1. Narmada Control Authroity, Through its Chairman, Office of Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110001
2. The Executive Member, Narmada Control Authority, Narmada Sada, Sector-B, Scheme No. 74, Vijay Nagar, Indore 452010 (M.P.)
3. Deputy Director (Admn.), Narmada Control Authority, Narmada Sada, Sector-B, Scheme No. 74, Vijay Nagar, Indore 452010 (M.P.)
4. Finance Officer, Narmada Control Authority, Narmada Sada, Sector- B, Scheme No. 74, Vijay Nagar, Indore 452010 (M.P.)
- Respondents (By Advocate- Shri N K Salunke) (Date of reserving order: 30.01.2024) Page 1 of 8 O.A.No. 200/00535/2018 Order By Kumar Rajesh Chandra, AM.
This Original Application was filed by the applicant on 17.05.2018 wherein the applicant has sought for the following relief:
"8. Relief Sought:
8.1 To call for the entire material record pertaining to the instant controversy from the respondents for its kind perusal: 8.2 to quash and set aside the orders dated 20.06.2016 (Annexure A/1).
8.3 To command and direct the respondents to return back deducted amount to applicant by charging heavy interest of 18%. 8.4 To command and direct the respondents to pay interest for the period 01.01.2016 to 22.06.2016 on the delayed payment of amount of Rs. 8,56,625 of gratuity by charging heavy interest of 18%. 8.5 To command and direct the respondents to pay the heavy interest of 18% p.a. to applicant in lieu of recovered amount of medical claim from 22.06.2016 to 02.11.2017.
8.6 Grant any other relief/s which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to the applicant. 8.7 Award the cost of the petition of the applicant.
2. During the pendency of this O.A., the applicant has filed M.A./222/2019 seeking amendment in the O.A. which was allowed Page 2 of 8 O.A.No. 200/00535/2018 by this Tribunal vide order dated 25.06.2019. Accordingly, the applicant carried out following amendments in the relief clause of this O.A..
"8.2 To command and direct the respondent authorities to pay gratuity to the applicant in accordance to recommendation of the seventh pay commission with respect to increase of gratuity (Annexure A/19), and amendment for government employees was notified on 25th July 2016 (Annexure A/20);
In Para 8.4 of OA replace "Rs. 8,56,625" by "Rs.18,56,625/- and Rs. 14,75,959 for period 23.06.2016 to 02.11.2017 and Rs. 13,27,578 for period 03.11.2017 to till date"
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents annexed herewith.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant during the course of arguments submitted that the applicant retired on 31.12.2015. He brought our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the prayer of grant of one increment to the individuals who superannuated on 30th June and 31st December. He averred that the same analogy is also to be applied in the present case and, he is entitled to get enhanced rate of gratuity with effect from 01.01.2016. Apart from this, learned counsel for the Page 3 of 8 O.A.No. 200/00535/2018 applicant also added that recovery of amount of Rs. 4,75,959 has been done from the applicant in the following heads:
Recoveries:
i) Less amount of excess payment worked out in compliance of MoWR order dated 21.03.2016 regarding fixation of pay: Rs. 2,72,952
ii) Less amount of excess payment on account of LTC claim objected by AG under para No. 5 of 2011-12: Rs. 39, 097
iii) Less amount of excess payment on account of LTC claim of passed voucher no. 241 dated 09.06.2014 : Rs. 15,529/-
iv) Less amount of Excess payment on account of Medical claim passed vide voucher 106 dated 09.06.2014 to avoid objection by AG:
Rs. 1,48,381/-
Total recoveries : Rs. 4,75,959/-
In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih and others (2015) 4 SCC 334, to say that recovery made after retirement of the applicant is impermissible.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents nos. 1 to 4 submitted that the applicant was paid two increments w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and when this discrepancy came to the notice, the correct pay fixation has been done. Applicant was retired from service on Page 4 of 8 O.A.No. 200/00535/2018 31.12.2015, while revised benefits of gratuity amount is effective from 01.01.2016, hence it is not applicable to the applicant.
6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties.
7. The respondents have made it clear that since the applicant was granted two increments on 01.01.2006, therefore, when this discrepancy came to their notice, they recovered the same. Furthermore, Annexure A/18 makes it clear that the medical claim amount has already been paid to the applicant.
8. We find that in the body of the O.A., the applicant has claimed multiple reliefs including benefit of enhanced rate of gratuity w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
9. The applicant is claiming the enhance rate of gratuity w.e.f 01.01.2016 making an analogy that since vide judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 (@SLP (C) No. 6185/2020) decided on 11.04.2023 in the case of the Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & others vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. (2023) SCC online SC 401 wherein the applicant who retired on the date one day before the date of increment, are entitled for the benefit of increment, in the same manner, he can also seek benefit of enhanced rate of gratuity.
Page 5 of 8
O.A.No. 200/00535/2018
10. It is made clear that the increment is granted to the applicants for rendering good service in the previous year rather than as an incentive for working with zeal in the coming year. The grant of benefit and gratuity are the service conditions which are extended to the employees for different purposes counting the complete number of years of service. The applicant is making a wrong analogy and the benefit of enhanced rate of gratuity cannot be extended to him as the aforesaid judgment on which the applicant is relying and seeking benefit in the same manner is not applicable in the present case and is clearly distinguishable. Moreover, gratuity gets governed by Indian Gratuity Act and the ceiling is fixed by pay commission recommendation.
11. Regarding the other reliefs it is clear that the amount of medical reimbursement has already been settled which is evident from the office order dated 02.11.2017 (Annexure R/12). Regarding the issue of recovery regarding the LTC amount, it is clear that the journey was performed by the applicant and dependent family member during LTC by Private Airlines which was pointed out by Indian Audit Team i.e. "Irregular payment for journeys performed in private airlines during LTC vide audit para-5 (Annexure R/5). Hence, the respondents have rightly made recovery from the applicant. Here, again the employee has laid the claim himself. It will be presumed Page 6 of 8 O.A.No. 200/00535/2018 that he is conversant with the rules. Hence, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih and others (supra) is not applicable in the present case because in the aforesaid judgment it is held that recovery is impermissible when the employee had to suffer due to the mistake on behalf of the employer.
12. Furthermore, the applicant in his capacity as Secretary & Chief Engineer, NCA had put up a note wherein it was stated that the matter of his pay fixation is to be forwarded to the Ministry for deciding the issue so that the applicant is not put to hardship. Therefore, applicant himself referred the matter to the Ministry by order dated 02.12.2015 (Annexure A/6) and the applicant was well aware that he got unlawful payment by misleading the facts of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 for pay fixation. So it cannot be said that employee had no role to play in this pay fixation that was ultimately corrected. Hence the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih and others (supra) is not applicable in the present case because in the aforesaid judgment it is held that recovery is impermissible when the employee had to suffer due to the mistake on behalf of the employer. Here, the applicant in his capacity as Secretary & Chief Engineer, raised the issue and the recovery was made and the employer is nowhere at fault.
Page 7 of 8
O.A.No. 200/00535/2018
13. In view of the observations made above, this Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
VK/-
Page 8 of 8