Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. M.P. Khosla vs Union Of India Through on 11 October, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-1582/2011
New Delhi this the 11th day of October, 2011.
Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Sh. M.P. Khosla,
Ex.Chief Inspector of Works,
Rail Coach Factory,
Kapurthala,
R/o 35, Basant Avenue,
Adjoining Urban Estate,
Durgi Road, Ludhiana-141008. . Applicant
(through Sh. R.K. Sarkar, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary,
Railway Board,
Ministry of Railway,
Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi-1.
2. The General Manager,
Rail Coash Factory,
Kapurthala-144601.
3. The General manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi-1.
4. Divl. Railway Manager,
Delhi Division,
Northern Railway,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi-55. . Respondents
(through Sh. Shailendra Tiwary with Sh. R.L. Dhawan, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) This application has been filed for a direction to the respondent authorities (i) for payment of his retiral dues, (ii) to treat the period of his sickness from 18.02.1991 to 20.03.1995 as leave on medical ground, (iii) to regularize his period of absence from 18.02.1991 to 30.06.2004 as qualifying service.
2. The applicant, who had lien on Northern Railway, was working in the grade of Inspector of Works (IOW)-II on deputation at Railway Coach Factory (RCF) Kapurthala.
3. It is the case of the applicant that he was taken ill on 18.02.1991 and was under medical treatment till 20.03.1995. When he reported to duty at RCF he was informed that he stood repatriated to his parent cadre i.e. Northern Railway. He continued to make representations before the authorities of RCF but without any result, and reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2004. When the General Manager/RCF did not take any action for settlement of his retiral dues, he represented before the highest authorities. He has referred to a letter dated 26.12.2005 of the General Manager/RCF addressed to the General Manager (P), Northern Railway in which the background of his case had been described and his service records were again sent to Northern Railway for appropriate action towards settlement of his dues. He has also annexed the letter dated 22.02.2007 of Northern Railway addressed to Railway Board in which the background of the case involving unauthorized absence of the applicant for about 13 years had been given and the Railway Board was requested to take a decision about the long period of absence. Finally, he placed reliance on the letter dated 25.08.2010 of the Railway Board in which General Manager, Northern Railway was advised that as no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him at the time of his retirement, he was entitled to DCRG as well as grant of provisional pension. The General Manager was also advised to send nominations of IO/Presenting Officer along with a list of relied upon documents and the name of their custodian at RCF.
4. The applicant submits that a disciplinary proceeding was started against him on 18.06.2008 under Rule-9 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and the inquiry has not made any progress after submission of his reply to the charge of unauthorized absence. According to his information, the disciplinary action against him has been kept in abeyance as per advice received from the Railway Board.
5. According to the respondents, he was repatriated to his parent cadre by order dated 20.03.1991 (Annexure R-1) of the competent authority of RCF. He was also relieved from the Coach Factory on 29.09.1991 (Annexure R-2) by order of the competent authority issued on that date. In spite of such specific direction, the applicant did not report before the competent authority of his parent cadre. On the other hand, he reported for duty at RCF on 21.03.1995. Again he was informed by letter 23.03.1995 of the office of Chief Engineer/RCF that he had already been spared from RCF and as directed earlier was asked to report to General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House. Earlier on 28.06.1994, he was asked to intimate the authority to whom he had reported after his relief from RCF. In reply to his letter dated 17.07.1995 he was again reminded to collect a copy of the letter dated 22.05.1995 which he had refused to receive from the office Superintendent of RCF. He was informed that his repeated applications to RCF would be of no avail in the view of the fact that he had been directed to report to General Manager, Northern Railway. Even in spite of receiving categorical instruction from the respondents the applicant did not report to his cadre controlling authority in Northern Railway.
6. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submits that his case was examined by the Railway Ministry (Railway Board) and the General Manager, Northern Railway was directed on 25.08.2010 to take steps to release of his DCRG and other retiral benefits. Even in spite of such instructions, the respondents have not taken any action.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the General Manager, Northern Railway is the final Authority for a Group-C employee like the applicant. It is for the General Manager, Northern Railway to take a final decision on the subject and the claim of the applicant is under consideration. The applicant was not in service on the date of his superannuation. He chose to remain unauthorizedly absent and did not report to his parent cadre even in spite of many instructions. It was only in the year 2009 that he had submitted his pension papers; but meanwhile disciplinary proceedings have been started against the applicant on the charge of prolonged absence from duty without permission. Unless a final view is taken how to treat this period, it would be difficult to decide on his claim for pensionary benefits.
8. We find that the applicant was absent from 18.02.1991 to 30.06.2004. He was relieved from RCF 29.04.1991 pursuant to the order dated 20.03.1991 of repatriation to his parent cadre. According to FR-18 unless the President, in view of exceptional circumstances of the case otherwise determines, no government servant can be granted of any kind for a continuous period exceeding five years. Admittedly a disciplinary proceeding, as is applicable to a retired employee, has been initiated under Rule-9 of the Pension Rules. But, the reasons why the inquiry has been kept on hold as seen from the letter annexed at Annexure A-9 are not known particularly in the background of the specific instructions issued in the letter dated 20.05.2010 asking the General Manager, Northern Railway to send nominations of IO/PO and the custodians of relied upon documents. The Ministry had sought for these documents as a decision has to be taken by the President in connection with the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the applicant, who is no longer a serving railway servant having reached the age of superannuation.
9. It is true that General Manager, Northern Railway is the final Competent Authority as far as the applicant is concerned. But, in view of the fact the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by the Railway Ministry, and the period of unauthorized absence is more than 13 years, the Railway Board has to take a final view about this period. In these circumstances, Respondent No.1 is directed to take a decision about the manner of treatment of the period of absence of the applicant within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If it requires final disposal of the disciplinary proceedings, that should be completed within the time period indicated. Since it has been stated at Paragraph-6 in counter reply dated 27.09.2011 that the DCRG and other admissible claims of the applicant are under process in consultation with the Accounts Department, it should be finalized by the respondents within the aforesaid time limit.
10. The O.A. is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber) Member (A) Member (J) /vinita/