Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sant Ram vs M/O Railways on 11 October, 2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. NO.3754 of 2018
This the 11th day of October, 2019
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
1. Sant Lal s/o Late Sh. Shyam Lal (Khalasi) aged 44 years
2. Sharbati w/o Late Sh. Ram Swaroop aged 54 years
D/o late Shri Shyam Lal (Khalasi)
Mailing Address:
C/o Mr. Pondhi Saini, Behind Saini Ram Leela Ground
Roop Nagar, Ward No. 14, Jind Haryana.
.... Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri M.K. Gaur for Shri U. Srivastava)
VERSUS
1. Union of India and ors, through the General Manager,
Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager (P) New Delhi,
Northern Railway, Estate Entry Road, New Delhi
..... Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Shailendra Tiwary)
O R D E R (Oral)
Today when this matter is taken up for consideration, main counsel again did not appear although a proxy counsel appeared on his behalf seeking an accommodation, despite the fact that this matter was partly heard on 10.10.2019. The matter was directed to be listed for further hearing today under the heading „Part-Heard‟ and it was also made clear in the said order that no further opportunity shall be given to applicant and he must be ready to present his arguments on his OA. Accordingly, we proceeded to dispose of this matter by 2 invoking the provisions of Rule 15 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and accordingly heard counsel for the respondents.
2. By filing this OA, the applicants are seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before their Lordships for the proper adjudication in the matter in the interest of justice.
(b) To quash and setting aside the impugned order dt.
06.08.18 (Annexure A/1) declining the request of the applicants after declaring the same in such a manner is as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of the mandatory provisions of law and further direct the respondents to restore the pension of the father of the applicants from September, 2005 to till date with all other consequential benefits, namely the arrears of pension, interest @ 18% etc.
(c) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted to the applicants."
3. This case was earlier taken for hearing by this Tribunal on 10.10.2010 and this Tribunal passed the following orders:-
"As this is the fourth round of litigation, we do not find any cause to keep postponing the matter which has already been postponed on the previous date also after requesting for an accommodation.
Counsel for the respondents is heard. He points out in his pleadings that the applicant is said to have committed fraud and obtained pension without being entitled to the same and when the said fraud was discovered, it was stopped in the year 2005. Now the 3 father of the applicant has died on 15.11.2017. The applicant has asked for a pension. He also pointed out that in the previous round of litigation, the service period of the late father of the applicant had been determined and he had neither appealed against the said determined service period being wrongly calculated nor had he preferred any appeal against the PPO which was issued. Having stopped the pension of the deceased employee in 2005, there is no justification to give the same to his legal heir."
4. Counsel for the respondents further emphasized by referring to the order dated 6.8.2018, which has been impugned in this OA, that the respondents in compliance of the Orders of this Tribunal again considered the case of the father of the applicants and they have categorically given the details of service particulars as per the available record, which are as under:-
DOB = 15.05.1938
DOA = 15.04.1987
Date of superannuation = 31.05.1996
Date of screening as Gangman = 29.03.1996 As such the services of applicants‟ father were regularised on 29.3.1996 after conducting the screening test and total service computed comes to 8 years 11 months and 14 days of casual service and 2 months of regular service. After calculating 50% of casual service for pension benefits ex- employee as per Rule had come to 4 years and 7- ½ months qualifying service for the pension at the time of 4 superannuation but as per Rules, minimum 10 years‟ qualifying service is required for granting the pension to a Railway employee retiring on superannuation and therefore, the father of the applicants was not eligible for pension on his superannuation. As such counsel further contended that decision for stopping the pension in the year 2005 was in accordance with the rules and law on the subject.
5. We have examined the rejoinder filed by the applicants in which they basically repeated that the counter reply filed by the respondents is wrong and reiterated their contentions made in the OA are correct but nowhere do they show in the rejoinder how and in what manner the contentions of the respondents are wrong. They only submit that the case for wrong and fraudulent pension was initiated against their father as a criminal case No.72/2006 and in the same he was acquitted by the Order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind vide their Order dated 29.3.2011 and after the said judgment their father is entitled for restoration of his pension which was withdrawn on grounds of his giving wrong facts. In the Counter Affidavit, it has been clearly stated that the deceased father of the applicants retired on 31.5.1996 on attaining the age of superannuation and was not entitled for pension as he has less than 10 years of service He had fraudulently obtained pension by giving his retirement as medical invalidation in service in 1991 and hence, on his wrong 5 declaration the pension was sanctioned to him. When the facts of the matter were examined it was found that he was not retired on ground of medical invalidation in service.
6. The contention of the applicants that since their father was acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind vide their Order dated 29.3.2011 in Criminal Case no.72/2006 and therefore, their deceased father is entitled for restoration of pension which was stopped in 2005 is concerned, the said case has nothing to do with determination of his qualifying service as the said criminal case was confined to the offence of forgery and the ingredients of Section 420,467, 468 and 471 & 120-B of IPC.
7. In view of the factual position, the respondents vide their order dated 6.8.2018 at Annexure A/1 have been able to make out the detailed reasons as to how father of the applicants was not entitled to pension.
8. In view of the facts as detailed above, after considering the entire service record of late Shri Shyam Lal, it was found that because of his total qualifying service, he is not eligible for superannuation pension, hence, this Tribunal does not find any illegality in the order dated 6.8.2018 as the same is based on the rules and law on the subject and as such this Tribunal does not find any cause to give any relief to the 6 applicants and therefore, the present OA being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Nita Chowdhury) Member (A) /ravi/