Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India Through Secretary To ... on 13 November, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
OA. No. 1143/PB/2013
(Reserved on 03.11.2014)
Chandigarh, this the 13th day of November, 2014
CORAM:HONBLE MRS.RAJWANT SANDHU,MEMBER(A)
HONBLE DR. BRAHM A.AGRAWAL,MEMBER(J)
Ram Krishan Pal S/o Late Sh. Diwan Chand, age 71 years (Retd. APM) Amritsar H.O, R/o H. No. 47-A, Court Road, Near Circuit House, Amritsar, Punjab.
Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh-160017.
3. Director Postal Services, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh 160 017.
4. Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh 160 017.
Respondents
Present: Sh. Rohit Seth, counsel for the applicant.
Sh. B.B. Sharma, counsel for the respondents.
ORDER
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER(A):-
1. This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
(a) Quash Memo dated 01.07.1998 (Annexure A-3) to the extent the benefit under BCR was given to applicant w.e.f. 01.07.1996 instead of on date of completion of 26 years of service as on 22.01.1996 and quash action of respondents not extending to the applicant benefit of the judgement rendered by this Tribunal and Honble High Courts in CWP No. 110 of 2004 decided on 17.12.2009, CWP No.12342-CAT-2005 and CWP No. 13655-CAT-2005 decided on 14.12.2010 vide which an interpretation of BCR Scheme was done and it was declared that an employee shall be entitled to benefit of BCR Scheme from date of completion of 26 years of service and direct to the respondents to extend the benefit of above judgements being similarly situated and grant the applicant the benefit under BCR Scheme w.e.f. 22.01.1996 on date of completion of 26 years of service with all the consequential benefits and arrears of pay and allowances, revised retiral benefits alongwith interest thereon @ 18% per annum from the date the amount became due till the actual date of payment.
2. In the grounds for relief, it has been stated as follows:-
(i) The controversy that benefit of BCR Scheme dated 11.10.1991 has to be granted from the date one completes 26 years of satisfactory service and not from a subsequent date has been set at rest by Full Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 14.1.2005 in case titled as Piran Ditta and Others Vs. UOI and Ors. in OA No. 7/JK/2003 cited as 2005(1) ATJ 430, against similar order in another case CWP No. 12342 of 2005 and CWP No. 13655 of 2005 titled as Gian Chand Vs. UOI and UOI Vs. Om Parkash Bhagat were filed before the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court which came to be decided vide order dated 14.12.2010 holding that an employee shall be entitled to benefit under BCR from date of completion of 26 years service and not any other date. Benefits pursuant to above judgements were extended to the employees other than applicant although the Honble Court had interpreted the applicability of the Scheme itself.
(ii) The action of the respondents in denying the benefit of BCR Scheme to the applicant is discriminatory and unreasonable and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking preliminary objection that the OA is barred by limitation as the applicant has sought quashing of the Circle Gradation List corrected upto 1.7.1998 (Annexure A-3) to the extent that the benefit under BCR was given to him w.e.f. 1.7.1996 instead of on date of completion of 26 years of service as on 22.01.1996 and quash action of respondents in not extending to him the benefit of the judgement rendered in 2009, 2010 etc.
4. It has further been stated that the applicant was appointed w.e.f. 10.7.1963 and was promoted as Postal Assistant w.e.f. 22.01.1970. He was granted 1st financial upgradation under TBOP Scheme after completion of 16 years of his satisfactory service w.e.f. 22.01.1986. Further, he was granted 2nd financial upgradation on completion of 26 years of his service under BCR Scheme w.e.f. 01.07.1996 vide SSPOs Amritsar Memo No. B-6/10-C/BCR dated 10.02.1998. As his date of birth is 10.04.1943, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2003 (Afternoon). The applicant was granted BCR benefits w.e.f. 01.07.1996 because as per departmental instructions issued vide D.G(P), New Delhi letter No. 2-2/94-E.1 dated 31.10.1995 (Annexure A-2), the crucial dates for grant of BCR benefits were 1st January & 1st July after completion of 26 years of satisfactory service and not with effect from the date of completion of 26 years of his service i.e. w.e.f. 22.01.1996 instead of w.e.f. 01.07.1996. The applicant was granted BCR benefit w.e.f. 01.07.1996 vide SSPOs Amritsar Memo No. B-6/10-C/BCR dated 10.02.1998 but he did not prefer any representation for his claim for BCR during the period of 15 years upto w.e.f. 11.2.1998 to 10.2.2013. Now when his service book and other service record have been weeded out, he submitted his applications dated 27.2.2013, 3.6.2013, 6.5.2013 and 8.7.2013 after ten years of his retirement which could not be replied due to non-availability of service book
5. It is further stated that the ex-employee Sh. Om Parkash Bhagat referred by the applicant in the OA preferred his claim in this Tribunal within the admissible time frame, his record was available and was got preserved well in time whereas no representation was made by the applicant within the time frame. Hence, his service record is not available at this belated stage. The prescribed period for preservation of service book is three years from the date of retirement of the official concerned. In this case, the applicant retired from service w.e.f. 30.04.2003 (A.N.) and a period of more than ten years had elapsed. The applicant has represented and filed the instant OA on the basis of Court orders, which are applicable to applicants therein only and applicant cannot claim parity. The instant OA is barred by time as the applicant did not prefer any representation within the admissible time frame and is trying to get the undue advantage. Moreover, his service book has already been weeded out, therefore, it is not feasible to extend the prayed for benefits to him at this stage.
6. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the applicant regarding the reply to the MA, it has been stated that the applicant is claiming the same benefits as had been released to similarly placed employees based upon the interpretation and applicability of BCR Scheme by the Honble High Court in CWP No. 110 of 2004 decided on 17.12.2009, CWP No. 12342-CAT of 2005 and CWP No. 13655-CAT-2005 decided on 14.12.2010. Honble High Court in Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2002(2) SCT, 354 has held that State has pervasive obligations to discharge in relation to maintaining its expected as already noticed, one of the important facets of such obligations is to be reasonable and fair in granting service benefit to its employees in accordance with service rules and the principle enunciated on pronouncement of judgments by the Courts. When judgements attain finality to which the State is a party, duty is cast upon the State to grant relief to its employees who are similarly situated and on identical facts. Benefit of such approach is many and it causes no disadvantage to the interests of the State. It is not necessary for the State to require each one of its employees to approach the Courts of law for grant of a relief which the State out to grant to the employees in normal course of its administration, particularly, the case of the kind above-referred. Such principle is well known and accepted for years now. Applicant is also entitled for such benefit which his colleagues are using..
7. It has further been stated that in Civil Appeal No. 5082/1997 titled as K.C. Sharma Vs. UOI decided on 25.7.1997, the Constitution Bench of Honble Supreme Court held that delay will not come in way of applicant to claim benefit of judgement. Similar OAs have been allowed by this Honble Tribunal. Applicant has a recurring cause of action as he is getting lesser pension every month. In case of Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Kumari Vs. UOI & Ors., JT 1994(7) SC 565 : 1995(1) SCT 527(SC) by the Honble Supreme Court and further same ratio of law was laid in Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2002(2) SCT, 354, the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that benefit of judgement should suo moto be granted by the official respondents without forcing them to approach the court of law. Moreover, in view of the law laid down by Honble Apex Court in M.R. Guptas case it gives a recurring cause of action to the applicant every month when he draws his pension. Moreover, the Jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2002(3) SCT 655 has also held that in matters concerning pension, cause of action is continuous one.
8. When the matter came up for consideration, learned counsel for the parties reiterated the content of the OA, rejoinder and the written statement respectively. Learned counsel for the applicant also brought to our notice the order dated 21.1.2013 in OA No. 111/HP/2012 wherein similar relief as sought by the present applicant, has been allowed to one Sh. Prem Singh, retired TOA(P), applicant in that OA. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that since the Service Book of the applicant had been weeded out, it was not possible to examine the claim of the applicant regarding quantum of arrears if any payable to the applicant.
9. We have carefully perused the order dated 21.1.2013 and it is clear that the claim of the present applicant is covered by the decision in the OA No. 111/HP/2012. Hence, this OA is allowed in the same terms and it is directed that the applicant be allowed the benefit under BCR w.e.f. the date when he completed 26 years of service as on 22.1.1996 with all consequential benefits and arrears of pay and allowances and revised retiral benefits provided the relevant portions of the Service Book of the applicant can be reconstructed through necessary documents to be provided by the applicant after accessing these from his own records, from his colleagues and the respondent department. The claim for interest is not allowed as the applicant has filed his OA as late as in August, 2013 although the claim relates to a much earlier period and even the judicial pronouncements that he is relying on, relate to earlier years.
10. No costs.
(RAJWANT SANDHU)
MEMBER(A)
(DR. BRAHM A.AGRAWAL)
MEMBER(J)
Dated: November , 2014.
ND*
1
OA. 1143/PB/2013