Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Smt. Sarla Saxena vs Union Of India on 18 August, 2016
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH,
JABALPUR
Original Application No.622/2013
Jabalpur, this Thursday, the 18th day of August, 2016
Mr. A.K. Patnaik, Judicial Member
Mr. G.P.Singhal, Administrative Member
Smt. Sarla Saxena, W/o Late Shri Mahesh Kumar Saxena, Aged about 77 years, By occupation-Retired as Senior Clerk, Commercial Department, Central Railways, Jhanshi, R/o Flat No.49-B, North Civil Lines, Jabalpur (M.P). - Applicant
(By Advocate None)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Department of Railways, New Delhi, Rail Bhawan, PIN 110001, Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
2. Chief Manager, Central Railways, CST, Mumbai, PIN 400008.
3. Divisional Railways Manager, North Central Railways, Jhanshi. PIN 284001.
4. Chief Finance and Accounts officer, North Railways, CST, Mumbai, PIN 400066 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Swapnil Ganguly)
(Date of reserving the order:-29.06.2016)
O R D E R
By G.P.Singhal, AM.-
None for the applicant. We propose to decide this Original Application in the absence of counsel for the applicant and by hearing counsel for the respondents by exercising our power vested under Rule 15(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure), Rules 1987.
2. By filing this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
8(8.1)It is therefore, prayed that a writ order direction be issued directing the respondents to calculate the entire post retiral benefits and the amount thereof accruing in favour of the deceased husband of the petitioner and the same be paid to the petitioner while calculating the amount towards the notional promotions of the deceased Mahesh Kumar Saxena with all the consequential benefits thereof.
8.2 That, the interest @ 12% per annum on the amount falling due to be paid to the petitioner be also paid to her alongwith cost of the present petition.
8.3 That, the concerned service record of Late Shri Mahesh Kumar Saxena be called for kind perusal of this Honble Tribunal.
8.4 Any other relief/reliefs, order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs, which this Honble Court deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstance of the present case.
8.5 Cost of instant lis.
3. The case of the applicant is that applicants husband, was appointed as Traffic Apprentice on 05.06.1956 with the respondents. He died in harness on 10.11.1983 while working to the post of Assistance Commissioner Superintendent (Claims) (for brevity ACS). The contention of the applicant is that her husband was entitled for promotion to the post of Senior Divisional Commissioner Superintendent (for brevity SDCS) in the year 1978, but he was never promoted to that post. According to the applicant, her husband filed many representations against his non-promotion to the post of Divisional Commercial Superintendent (for brevity DCS) and further SDCS but his representations were not considered at the relevant time. Therefore, applicants husband, when died on 10.11.1983 at the age of 53 years only, was still working as ACS. After death of applicants husband, the family pension and retiral benefits were also paid according to pay of the post of ACS.
4. The applicant has submitted that her husband has been unnecessary penalized without there being any specific order thereof as despite of the fact that he was exonerated from all the allegations levelled against him and it was found by the department not to hold any enquiry against him, even then his promotion was withheld. Therefore, applicants husband deserves to be granted notional promotions and his retiral benefits have to be re-calculated on the basis of revised pay in view of these notional promotions.
5. The respondent No.3 filed preliminary objections on admissibility of this Original Application primarily on the ground of delay. The applicant has in this Original Application sought promotion of Late Mahesh Kumar Saxena, applicants husband, with all consequential benefits so that family pension and retiral benefits can be calculated. However, the applicants husband is claimed to have been superseded in 1978 and therefore filing this Original Application after a lapse of about 35 years, without arraying the person who has superseded the husband of the applicant is clearly barred by limitation. As per pleadings in this Original Application applicants husband was never promoted as SDCS or DCS and therefore retiral dues for those posts cannot be paid as those posts were never held by the husband of the applicant. The applicant was offered compassionate appointment after the death of her husband and has also served with the respondent-department and thereafter retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Hence, it cannot be presumed that the applicant was not aware of the legal right regarding the claim of her husband. Therefore, after a lapse of more than three decades, under the garb of grant of retiral dues for the post which was not occupied by the husband of the applicant, no relief can be granted. Thus, the Original Application deserves to be dismissed being without any merit.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents and carefully perused the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed therewith. We have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondents.
7. It is undisputed that the applicants husband died while working on the post of ACS and after his death retiral benefits were granted to the applicant based on the salary drawn by the applicants husband on that post. Thus, the relief, as prayed for by the applicant in this Original application, can not be granted without considering the case of the applicants husband for promotion which was denied to him in 1978 due to his supersession. Challenging alleged supersession of applicants husband in 1978 now after a lapse of almost 35 yeas is clearly barred by limitation, for which no application has ever been filed for condonation of delay. Mere filing of the representations does not extend the limitation. The Honble Apex Court in the matter of Rattam Chandra Samanta vs. Union of India, (1994) SCC (L&S) 182 has held that delay deprives the person of remedy available under law. Further in the matter of S.S.Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 10 their lordships have held that repeated unsuccessful representations do not extend the period of limitation. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the applicant at this stage regarding notional promotion of her husband and thereafter reworking and payment of revised retiral benefits based on such promotion.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(G.P.Singhal) (A.K. Patnaik) Administrative Member Judicial Member rn 6 Sub: Limitation OA 622/2013Page 6 of 6