Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
V.P. Mall Aged About 62 Years Son Of Late ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary ... on 3 August, 2011
(Open Court)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
ALLAHABAD this the 03rd day of August, 2011
Present:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.C. SHAMA, MEMBER- J
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 911/2011
V.P. Mall aged about 62 years son of Late R.P. Mall Ex- Chargeman-I, 4 Base Repair Depot, Air Force, Chakeri, Kanpur
R/0 238/7 Babu Purwa Colony, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Nagar.
Applicant.
V E R S U S
1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
2. A.O.C. in-Chief, HQ, MC, IAF, Nagpur.
3. The P.C.D.A. (PENSION), Dropadi Ghat, Allahabad.
4. The Officer In-charge, 4 Base Repair Depot, AirForce, Chakeri, Kanpur
5. The CGO (A) 4 Base Repair Depot, AirForce, Chakeri, Kanpur
..Respondents
Present for the Applicant: Sri S.S. Srinet.
Present for the Respondents: Sri Anil Deivedi.
O R D E R
(Delivered by Honble Mr. Justice S.C. Sharma, J.M.) Under challenge in this O.A. are the orders dated 30.12.2010 and 24.3.2011 (Annexures A-1 and A-2 of the O.A.) and a further prayer has been made for giving direction to the respondents for making payment of compound interest on the delayed payment on post retiral benefits to the applicant.
2. I have heard Shri S.S. Srinet the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Dwivdi, the learned counsel for the respondents. Annexure A-1 is a letter dated 30.12.2010. I have perused the contents of this letter and it is evident from the perusal of this letter wherein it has been alleged that due to some incorrect data filled by you with respect to name of your spouse in specimen signature/identification papers, it was returned un-action with a advise to re-submit the case. The same was re-submitted, meanwhile VI CPC was declared and thereby on revision of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 and also as per guidelines issued by PCDA (P), the same was once again returned with an advise to re-submit in New Data Sheet after re-fixation of pay. Accordingly, PFP was raised and submitted to concerned authority for audit. Approx 02 to 03 months time is being taken to complete and finalize the audit of PFPs/Pension papers by audit authority.
3. In view of this letter, papers were submitted to the concerned authority by the respondents for necessary action, but in the meantime as 6th Pay Commission report was implemented, hence the same was returned for re-fixation of the pay of the applicant. Hence this letter shows that there was no delay in settlement of the pension of the applicant but it was due to objection of the higher authority. The same fact is evident from Annexure A-2. In this letter of 24.3.2011 it has been mentioned that due to error in the spelling of the name of spouse, the papers were returned un-actioned due to implementation of 6th Pay Commission with a advice to re-submit the case in the new data sheet. Hence a perusal of both these Annexure show that due to some technical mistake the matter of finalization of pension of the applicant could not be finalized. There was error in the spelling in the name of the spouse. However, direction was given for re-fixation of the pay of the applicant as per 6th C.P.C.
4. On perusal of both these letters it is seen that this was not such a matter which could have been agitated by filing O.A. because the respondents have not turned down the claim of the applicant for re-fixation of the pension. They have only raised some objections. If the objections pointed out by the respondents were incorrect, then proper reply ought to have been given by the applicant that wrong objection had been taken in submission of the bio-data and the bio-data given earlier is correct. If there was some mistake as pointed out by the respondents, then it was expected from the applicant immediately to act according to the directions of the respondents and he should have rectified the mistake in the data sheet. If there was any spelling mistake in the name of the spouse, then instead of rushing to the Tribunal, the applicant ought to have approached the respondents for correction of the bio-data. There is no order refusing the applicant from entitlement of the pension. There was no cause of action in favour of the applicant for filing the O.A, hence it is liable to be dismissed. The O.A. is dismissed as no cause of action arose till now for filing the O.A. However, the applicant is advised to approach the respondents and to act according to letters A-1 and A-2. If the mistake committed by the applicant is corrected, then proper intimation should be given to the respondents and he can also mention that the respondents are harassing the applicant. In case more delay is caused, then he will be entitled for compound interest and if really, there is a mistake in the data given by the applicant regarding the spouse of the applicant, then as a gentleman he should rectify the mistake in the data sheet and I expect an early action in the matter. No order as to costs.
Member (J) s.a.