Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
P Thangavel vs Govt. Of India Press on 9 August, 2023
1 OA No.310/00378/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00378/2020
Dated Wednesday the 9th day of August Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J)
P.Thangavel,
S/o.Perumal Reddi,
No.23, D1, 3rd Street,
Jothipuram,
Coimbatore - 641 047. ... Applicant
By Advocate M/s. V. Vijay Shankar
Vs
1.Union of India,
Rep.by its Manager (Printing)
Government of India Press,
Coimbatore - 641 019.
2.The Director (Printing)
Directorate of Printing,
B Wing, Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 011. ... Respondents
By Advocate Mr.Su.Srinivasan
2 OA No.310/00378/2020
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:
"To call for the records of the 1st respondent in its. No.GIP/CBE/684/2019-20/Estt/16 dated 25.06.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to sanction pension, gratuity, commutation, EL encashment and all other admissible terminal benefits to the applicant along with interest at 12% per annum from 1.7.2014 and pass such other order to orders as may be deemed fit and thus render justice."
2. The brief facts of the case in nut shell is as under:
The applicant was appointed as a Peon in the year 1979. Subsequently the applicant was came to be terminated from servie from 26.05.2003 for securing his appointment on the basis of alleged bogus community certificate. The applicant alleged that the termination was based on order of two members District Vigilance Committee. Being aggrieved the applicant approached this Tribunal in OA 718/2003 which was allowed by an order dated 06.02.2004. The respondents have challenged the order of this Tribunal in WP No. 6717/2004 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The same came to be dismissed on the ground that the District Level Committee has no authority in law when it passed the said order and the same was based on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of 3 OA No.310/00378/2020 India in the matter of Madhuri Patil Vs Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development thereby the applicant was directed to be reinstated into service with no backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. Subsequently the respondent department has challenged the said order of the Hon'ble High Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No 6051/2010 and by an order dated 27.01.2006 there was an interim stay to the impugned Judgment and order passed by the Honble High Court and consequently the applicant was not reinstated into service.
3. The applicant further submits that finally the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 19.09.2017 disposed of the appeal and on information submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant who has superannuated hence the observation has been made no question of reinstatement of the applicant but he will be entitled to 50% backwages only. The applicant therefore, has submitted the representation dated 13.08.2018 and requested the department for grant of pension. Since there was no response hence by filing the OA 204/019 applicant has approached this Tribunal and vide its order dated 26.02.2019 this Tribunal has directed to the respondents to consider the representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order thereby the respondents by speaking order dated 25.06.2019 have rejected the claim of the applicant for grant of retiral benefits in view of the observation and orders passed by the Hon'ble 4 OA No.310/00378/2020 Supreme Court of India in the matter of applicant itself. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed the present OA and prayed for the aforesaid relief.
4. After notice the respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed a detailed reply statement and opposed the relief on the ground that in respect of applicant's termination though the lower courts have ordered in favour of the applicant however the department have challenged the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6051/2010 and the impugned orders was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 27.1.2006. Hence the applicant was not reinstated into service.
5. The respondents further contended that when the matter has been taken up for final hearing on 19.09.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded all the facts including that the applicant has crossed the age of superannuation and observed that no question of reinstatement of the applicant. However relying upon the order passed in SLP (C) No. 17084/2005 titled as General Manager (P&A) ONGC Ltd V. B. Kirupanjali decided by a Bench of 3 Judges on 26.02.2016 and it was held that in a situation such as the present, if the employee has not yet superannuated, he should be reinstated along with 50% backwages since the constitution of the District Level Committee was not in accordance with law laid down by this Court in Madhuri Patil and Anr. Vs Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 5 OA No.310/00378/2020 has also by their specific order has directed the employer that the applicant who has been kept out of service shall be given 50% backwages. The employees who have retired as per rules regulations circulars on attaining the age of superannuation shall also be paid 50% backwages. The persons whose services have been terminated but have not attained the age of superannuation they should be reinstated with 50% backwages. The respondents further contended that when the fact has been placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the applicant's matter that applicant has crossed the age of superannuation thereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that no question of reinstatement will be in the matter of applicant and he is only entitled for 50% backwages.
6. When the facts about superannuation has been placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court it was the applicant / applicant counsel was having an opportunity to pray for the retiral benefits. However without any such directions the respondents cannot grant the benefits claimed by the applicant in his representation. Therefore the respondents have rightly rejected the applicant's claim for grant of pension and other retiral benefits for which he is not eligible and hence prayed for the dismissal of the OA.
7. Heard both sides. Perused the OA and other connected records.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that for no fault of the applicants he is made to suffer when admittedly the certificate relied by the respondents on his termination even in the order of the Hon'ble 6 OA No.310/00378/2020 Supreme Court has accepted that the cancellation of the caste certificate of the applicants and other similarly situated by the District Level Committee is not in accordance with the guidelines issued in the matter of the Maduri Patil and thereby the Hon'ble High Court has quashed the decision of the District Level Committee and consequently the decision of the Sate Level Committee.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 7991/2010 in the matter of UOI Vs The Registrar CAT and L. Lingam Ramaligam wherein the cognizance has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Community Certificate and held that it is by now well settled that so long as the community certificate issued in favour of the employee is not cancelled in the manner known to law the employer has no right to deprive whatever the service benefits to which the employee is otherwise entitled to. So far in the matter of the applicant also till date the said community certificate was not cancelled by any of the authority in the manner known to the law till date after the decision of the District Level Committee as well as State Level Committee as been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP 19234/2014 in the matter of UOI and Ors Vs. CAT and M. Rengarajan and another vide its 7 OA No.310/00378/2020 order dt. 07.07.2015. Dealing into the similar issue the Court has considered the rules in respect of withholding or withdrawal of pension by the Railway Servant it is observed thus in paras 28, 29 of the Judgment and taken note of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in other WP s too. Paras 28 and 29 of the order reads as under:
"8. Even if the petitioner could fall back upon Rule 9 or 10, both these Rules are very clear to the effect that they can be invoked only when judicial or departmental proceedings are pending against the employee concerned. We have already extracted both the Rules as above. Rule 9[1] specifically makes a mention about the pensioner being found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence, in any departmental or judicial proceedings. Today, no judicial or departmental proceedings have been initiated against the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the contingency contemplated under Rule 9[1] where the Railway Administration will have a right to withdraw pension, or gratuity in cases where a person is found guilty of a misconduct in a departmental or judicial proceedings, has not even arisen. Even Rule 9[3] makes a specific mention about the pending of a departmental or judicial proceedings, as on the date of railway servant reaching superannuation. On the date on which the 2nd respondent reached the age of superannuation, viz., 31.7.2010, there were no departmental or judicial proceedings either initiated or pending. Even after five years of his retirement, that is even today, no proceedings other than a mere reference of the Community Certificate of the 2nd respondent is pending with the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
29. In order to satisfy our conscience whether any such proceedings are actually pending, we impleaded on the earlier occasion the State Level Scrutiny Committee and issued notices. Insofar as the case on hand is concerned, the State Level Scrutiny Committee appears to have sent a communication only yesterday, viz., 6.7.2015 21 to the Divisional Personnel Officer asking 8 OA No.310/00378/2020 him to forward a copy of the Community Certificate for the purpose of initiating proceedings. The letter produced by Mrs.A.Sri Jayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader for the State of Tamil Nadu shows that only after we impleaded the State Level Scrutiny Committee and only after we issued a specific direction to the Government Pleader to ascertain the status of any such enquiry, the first salvo has been fired on 6.7.2015. Therefore, the pendency, if at all it is taken to be pendency of the proceedings for verification before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, cannot impede the settlement of terminal benefits and pensionary benefits upon the 2nd respondent. "
11. Further the learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP No. 5918/2016 vide its order dated 18.02.2016 in the matter of UOI Vs. Registrar, CAT and P.V. Ponnuswamy wherein it is held that in the event of the Scrutiny Committee cancelling the Community Certificate, the employer can pass orders forfeiting the pension even on the ground of mere pendency of the proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee cannot impede the settlement of terminal benefits to the employee.
12. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the absence of any order of the appropriate authority the respondent Government cannot forfeit the pension which is the right of the person who received the pension continuously until his final departure and even after his departure his family is entitled to the family pension and in the even the State Level Scrutiny Committee cancels the community certificate of the employee the employer can always can pass forfeiting the pension as well as family 9 OA No.310/00378/2020 pension.
13. The learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the order dated 08.03.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein the order dated 26.02.2016 has been modified to the extent recording the fact that the employee has worked through out the entire period and retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2016 thereby the Hon'ble Supreme court has modified the order that in such kind of case no further steps to be taken and they shall be paid retiral benefits as per the rules and it is accordingly was ordered.
14. In the matter of General Manager (P&A) ONGC Ltd V. B. Kirupanjali the learned counsel for the applicant further submits that moreover the cancellation of the said community certificate of the District Level Committee has been challenged before the Hon'le High Court of Madras in WA No. 1414/2001 by the applicant and vide its judgment dated 14.08.2001 the applicant has been granted permission to raise the issue before the State Level Committee with a direction to the State Level Committee to decide the same with an observation that if the applicant is still continuing in service he can continue in service subject to the ultimate decision of the State Level Committee and by its order dated 26.03.2003 the state level committee has confirmed the order passed by the District Level Committee and cancelled the community certificate issued to the applicant thereby the respondents have terminated the service of the 10 OA No.310/00378/2020 applicant on 26.05.2003 without even waited further to permit the applicant to challenge the said orders.
15. Ultimately the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation upon considering the facts and merit in the matter this Tribunal has set aside the termination order and directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service. Subsequently the said order has been challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court. While dismissing the Writ Petition of the respondents the Hon'ble High Court also directed to reinstate the applicant without back wages. Finally the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the appeal filed by Department relying upon the full Bench order in SLP (C)No. 17084/2005 dated 26.02.2016 recorded the facts that the applicant has reached the age of superannuation and directed not to reinstate the applicant and directed to pay the 50% backwages and at that time the only question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in respect of the reinstatement. So far, there was no occasion to the applicant to claim the benefit of the retirement. Hence according to the applicant the question in respect of retiral benefit is open. Therefore the applicant has submitted his representation. However the respondents have not considered in accordance with law.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the arguments and submitted that the applicant has approached the said State Level Committee against the District Level 11 OA No.310/00378/2020 Committees order and accordingly the said Community certificate has been cancelled by the Sate Level Committee and it was informed to the authority. Following with the guidelines issued in the matter of Madhuri Patil the respondent Department acted and taken a decision to terminate the applicant's service. When matter reached to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and upon hearing by recording all facts and merit order came to be passed and there is no ambiguity in the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 19.09.2017.
17. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the judgments / orders relied by the applicant passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras to his support with regard to community certificate and the facts and the ratio of the matter is not applicable to the present case. Moreover the order dated 08.03.2016 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has modified their earlier order dated 26.02.2016 on the facts that the employee who had worked through out the entire period and retired after attaining the age of superannuation that is on 31.01.2016 is before the Judgment of the full bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.02.2016, therefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court has modified the order to that extent that on such cases they shall be paid retiral benefit as per the rules. However, in the matter of the applicant for his reinstatement the Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed the said impugned orders by its order dated 27.01.2006. Hence, the applicant was not reinstated and finally he reached 12 OA No.310/00378/2020 the age of superannuation.
18. Learned counsel for the applicant appearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out this fact and after observing the same the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded in its order that since he has reached the age of superannuation and there is no question of reinstatement, however he is entitled to 50% back wages if at all the applicant want retiral benefits he also has an opportunity at that time to request the Hon'ble Supreme Court for grant of retiral benefits or move for the modification of the order. However the applicant has not approached to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and once the issue has been settled before the Hon'ble Supreme Court particularly when the cognizance of the fact has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the applicant has reached the age of superannuation and therefore he cannot be reinstated in the service therefore this Court cannot sit over the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
19. It is to be noted that admittedly the applicant's termination has been challenged before this Tribunal and subsequently before Hon'ble High Court and finally before Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide its order dated 19.09.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 6051/2010 same came to be disposed of.
20. It is also to be noted that in the matter of General Manager (P&A) ONGC Ltd V. B. Kirupanjali the employee who worked through out the entire period and attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2016. 13 OA No.310/00378/2020 Therefore he has moved for the modification of the order dated 26.02.2016 and by its order dated 08.03.2016 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has modified their order in respect of grant of 50% of back wages and directed the respondents to pay the retiral benefits.
21. Admittedly in the case of the applicant, the applicant has not been reinstated since there was a stay by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and pending the Civil Appeal the applicant reached the age of superannuation. Recording the said fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only granted 50% back wages and clearly said that there is no question of reinstatement. Though the fact is well within the knowledge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court however the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not issued any such directions for grant of pension and retiral benefits. There is no ambiguity in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
22. In view of the same the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is final order and the tribunal cannot have jurisdiction and power to modify the same. In view of the same no interference is required. OA is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Lata Baswaraj Patne) Member (J) 09.08.2023 AS