Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Dr Sharat Chandra vs General Manager N C Rly on 27 September, 2023
1
Reserved on 22.09.2023
Pronounced on 27.09.2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Original Application No.242 of 2018
Present:
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member- (Administrative)
Dr. Sharat Chandra, Aged about 71 years old,
Son of Late Ram Bahadur Singh,
Resident of 692, Civil Lines,
City and District-Etawah (U.P.)
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri S.K. Anwar
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway,
Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad.
3. Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, North Central
Railway, Allahabad.
4. Senior Divisional Finance Manager, North Central Railway,
Allahabad.
------------Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Shivaji Singh
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member-(Administrative) Shri S.K. Anwar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Shivaji Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By way of this original application the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
2
"(i) To issue, an order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record of pay fixation/revision of the applicant and to quash the impugned orders dated 29.08.2016 and 08.03.2017 passed by respondent no.2 and 3 (Annexure No.A-6 and A-8 to the Compilation No.1 of this original application).
(ii) To issue, an order or direction commanding the respondents to make the payment of interest to the applicant on the arrears of monthly pension paid to the applicant as a result of revision of pension belatedly pursuant to the OM dated 28.1.2013, 30.07.2015 and 06.04.2016 at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accrual to the date of actual payment.
(iii) To issue, a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to consider and decide the representation dated 01.08.2017 (Annexure No.A-15 to compilation no.2 of this O.A.) in a time bound manner which was fixed by this Court.
(iv) To issue, any other relief which this Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(v) To award the costs of the original application to the applicant."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant took voluntary retirement during September 2000 while working a Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Etawah and his pension was fixed in PPO No.100031220 dated 01.01.2001 which was revised vide PPO No.1302020116 dated Nil.01.2006. The applicant requested to revise the pension in accordance with recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission applicable to pre-2006 pensioners and accordingly, his pension was revised dated 12.04.2016. The applicant was paid arrears owing to difference in pension. The applicant sent his representation dated 12.07.2016 and 12.08.2016 requesting interest on arrears of pension. As there was no action on the representation of the applicant he filed OA No.1265 of 2016 in this Tribunal which was disposed of vide order dated 10.11.2016 with a direction to decide the representation of the applicant dated 12.08.2016 within a period of two months by passing a reasoned and speaking order from the dated of receipt of certified copy of that order. The respondents no.3 decided the representation of the applicant vide order dated 08.03.2017. The said representation of the applicant was decided 3 by the competent authority in a letter dated 08.03.2017. The relevant portion of that order is quoted below:-
"6. The time taken from the receipt of application of Dr. Sharat Chandra and issue of PPO (08.12.2015 to 12.04.2016) is only 4 months. From this it is evident that no undue delay has taken place in the instant case as it normally takes 3-4 months for revision of pension cases, as the proposals for revision of pension are routed through various stages & different offices.
7. DRM/P/ALD vide their letter No.769/E-2/Pension/ALD/9/2000 dated 29.08.2016 has already advised Dr. Sharat Chandra that pension revision has been done in terms of orders contained in DOP & PW OM No.-38/37/08 P&PW/(A) dated 30.07.2015 and no interest on revision of pension arrear is admissible as per this authority.
From the above facts, I have come to the conclusion that no undue delay has taken place in issuing the revised PPO for disbursement of revised pension and as such no interest is admissible on arrears of revised pension."
4. Aggrieved by the above order applicant has filed this original application requesting to quash the order dated 29.08.2016 and 08.03.2017 passed by respondents no.2 and 3 on the ground that the arrears of pension was approved w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and was paid to applicant on 30.06.2016. rejection of interest on delayed payment of pension order is illegal and arbitrary causing substantial injustice to applicant.
5. The respondents in their counter affidavit have submitted that applicant's pension was revised as per instructions laid down in DOPT OM No.38/37/08-P & Pw(A) dated 30.07.2015, where in it does not provide payment of interest on arrears of pension and it is also mentioned here that there was huge number of cases to be revised and not a single case of the applicant. As such, the delay in this regard is but natural and it is further intimated that there is no such type of rule to pay interest on arrears of pension and cannot be considered being not permissible under the extent rules in this regard. The applicant has already been intimated this vide this office letter No.769/E-2/Pension/9/2000 dated 4 29.08.2016. In compliance of the judgment and direction of this Tribunal in order dated 18.11.2016 in OA No.1265 of 2016, it is informed that respondent no.3 i.e. financial advisor & Chief Accounts Officer/N.C. Railway/Allahabad has decided the applicants representation dated 12.08.2016 and passed a reasoned and speaking order on 08.03.2017.
6. In the rejoinder affidavit the applicant has narrated the same facts which has been mentioned in the original application and added that the respondents should be directed to pay interest on belated payment of pension.
7. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
8. The applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and others (2008) 3 SCC 44. The subject matter of the same is quoted below:-
"Interest on delayed payment of retirement benefits-Held, flows from these provisions."
9. The subject quoted above is quite different from the issue in the present original application where pension of retirees retired before 2006 was revised by the respondents based on the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and appeal by the respondents was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as a policy decision for pensioners retired prior to 01.01.2006. In the said order respondents were directed to give effect of revision of pension to pensioners who retired prior to 2006 from 01.01.2006 instead of 24.09.2012. In the said order Hon'ble High Court has not directed to sanction interest on arrears of pension. Consequently the above order was issued on 30.07.2015 and 04.04.2016 and applicant wants sanction of interest on the arrears of pension paid belatedly pursuant to above order. In neither of the order it is mentioned 5 that pensioners will be entitled for payment of interest on arrears of pension. The applicant has not challenged these two office memoranda.
10. On minute scrutiny of the rival submissions and available record it is clear that pensioners who have retired prior to 01.01.2006 got the benefit of Government policy and became eligible for enhanced pension. The benefits of this policy will accrue to pensioners from the date of issue of office memorandum. Although the benefit of enhanced pension was applicable to pensioners w.e.f. 01.01.2006, in absence of any policy decision regarding payment of interest on enhanced pension due to this policy decision, interest will not accrue to applicant. The case cited by the applicant is belated payment of pension due to pendency of charge against the applicant and subsequent exoneration from the charge. These two cases are not similar and cannot be related for grant of interest on arrears of pension as claimed by the applicant. The speaking order issued by the respondents is reasoned and does not require any interference.
11. In the light of the above discussions, this original application is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs.
All the related misc. applications are also disposed of accordingly.
(Mohan Pyare) Member (Administrative) /Neelam/