Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pooran Lal vs Union Of India & Others on 24 December, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI P.T. NO.243/2010 This the 24th day of December, 2010 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN Pooran Lal Applicant ( By Shri D. N. Sharma, Advocate ) Versus Union of India & Others Respondents ( By Shri Hilal Haider for Respondent No.1, Shri K. C. Kaushik for Respondents 2 & 3, Advocates ) O R D E R
Pooran Lal, a retired Government servant, residing at Agra, has filed Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, wherein he has sought quashing of the charge-sheet issued vide memorandum dated 8.9.2003. He stood retired on superannuation w.e.f. 30.9.2003, and inasmuch as, the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity and commutation of pension has been withheld, he seeks the same as well with interest. The applicant also seeks benefit of promotion on regular basis in the senior time scale w.e.f. 17.6.2002. Some other reliefs have also been asked for. With the main Application, a misc. application under Section 25 seeking retention of the case at the Principal Bench at Delhi, even though the jurisdiction may be with the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal, has also been filed. In the application aforesaid, it is pleaded that the applicant is a retired Government servant and is residing at Agra, and that Allahabad is at a distance of about 500 kms. from Agra, whereas it would take about 2= hours only to reach Delhi, and it would be thus more convenient for him to pursue his case at Delhi.
2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel representing the applicant contends that the applicant after his retirement is living only on provisional pension and some of his retirement dues having been withheld, he is not in a sound financial position, and, therefore, Delhi would be more convenient for him to pursue his case.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents have filed reply, wherein it is stated that the applicant is residing at Agra and the Principal Bench would have no jurisdiction to entertain the OA, and that the Allahabad Bench would have the jurisdiction. BSNL, it is pleaded, is having employees in lakhs posted all over the country, and it would be neither feasible nor practical to allow the application seeking transfer to Delhi for adjudication by the Principal Bench. Reference is made to order dated 20.4.2010 passed in PT No.10/2010 filed by Kamal Ram Sahni & another, which was dismissed by this Tribunal. During the course of arguments, all that has been urged by the learned counsel is that if employees of BSNL who may be in lakhs, may choose their own place of convenience to file the cases, it would be very difficult for BSNL to defend. For dismissal of the application seeking retention, reliance is placed upon order dated 20.4.2010 passed in PT No.10/2010.
4. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and examining the records, I am of the view that BSNL shall have to defend the case, be it in the Principal Bench or any other Bench of the Tribunal. Nothing at all has been urged as to what inconvenience would be caused to BSNL in defending the matter at Delhi. Convenience of the employee, depending upon his financial position and other relevant factors is indeed one of the grounds for transferring a case from one Bench to another or retaining it in the Principal Bench. Reliance placed by the counsel for respondents on order dated 20.4.2010 in PT No.10/2010 may not be of much advantage, as the same was decided on the facts of the said case. The aforesaid PT was primarily rejected on the ground that the applicants as regards their place of residence had not come up with truth.
5. For the reasons mentioned above, this application is allowed in terms of the prayer made therein.
( V. K. Bali ) Chairman /as/