Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Sunil Baliram Suryawanshi vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 19 June, 2025
1 OA No. 218/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Mumbai Bench: Mumbai
OA No.218/2022
Reserved on: 25.04.2025
Pronounced on: 19.06.2025
CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Sunil Baliram Suryawanshi
Aged: 58 yrs, Occ: Retired,
R/o Jalgaon naka, Behind Ghasilal hotel,
Bhusaval Dist. Jalgaon.
Pin No. 425201
M.No.8805444836/8275856555
Email: [email protected] -Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. R.T. Diwate a/w Mr. Mohsin
Khan)
Versus
1. The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd
Through its Chairman and Managing Director
Bharat Sanchar Bhawan,
H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi-110001
2. The General Manager Telecom
BSNL, Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana
Through GM Telecom BSNL, Aurangabad.
3. The Chief General Manager,
Telecom Maharashtra Circle
BSNL Bhavan, Juhu Road, Santacruz West,
Bombay-54
- Respondents
(By Advocate Dr. V.S. Masurkar)
2 OA No. 218/2022
ORDER
This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act for seeking the relief of release of pension and pensionary benefits.
2. Facts giving rise to this application are that the applicant had joined the Department of Telecom on 12th March, 1983 on the post of T.T. The applicant was working as T.T. till 31st January, 2020. The applicant was absorbed in the year 2001 in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL).
3. In the year 2019, the respondent no. 1 i.e. BSNL had floated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The applicant sought VRS. Accordingly, VRS was granted to him on 31st March, 2020. As per the scheme, he was supposed to get benefits of VRS i.e. pension, gratuity and other benefits soon after the grant of VRS. However, the applicant was asked to furnish caste certificate as the applicant belongs to Scheduled Tribe "Tokre Koli". He contends that in VRS, there was no clause that before retirement, certificate of caste would 3 OA No. 218/2022 be required to be produced from the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The applicant was granted voluntary retirement subject to the condition that he would make online application for getting the caste certificate from Caste Scrutiny Committee under Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Caste Scrutiny Act). He contends that the applicant was granted provisional pension but he has not been paid other pensionary benefits i.e. gratuity, leave encashment, etc. He contends that gratuity and other pensionary benefits can be withheld only when judicial proceedings or departmental enquiry is pending against an employee. In case of applicant, no such enquiry was pending at the time of his VRS. In terms of VRS, the applicant was entitled to get all the pensionary benefits including pension. He has, therefore, filed this application seeking following reliefs:-
4 OA No. 218/2022
"a) This Original Application may kindly be allowed thereby directing Resp. Nos. 1 and 3 to forthwith process, sanction and pay to the applicant the amounts of his Limp-sum/ Ex-Gratia compensation as proved under "BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme
- 2019" and his leave encashment and all other retiral/terminal benefits to which he is entitled under existing Rules on the basis of the total service rendered by him to the BSNL.
b) Costs of this Original Application may kindly be awarded to the applicants.
c) Any other appropriate relief as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be granted."
4. Respondents filed their reply contending that the applicant has secured the employment under "ST" category and his appointment was governed by the conditions stipulated within the relevant rules and orders in force from time to time. During service, the applicant had suo-moto filed on record the copy of his caste certificate. The said caste certificate is at Annexure
-R2. From this caste certificate, it is apparent that the applicant sought benefit of his caste and got the employment. On the basis of this certificate, entry was taken in service book of the caste of the applicant. The name of the applicant was also mentioned in the reservation roster. The applicant was very much aware of the fact that he was placed in the reserved category. 5 OA No. 218/2022 The copy of service book is at Annexure- R3 and copy of reservation roster is at Annexure- R4. The name of the applicant appears at serial no. 25 in this roster. This indicates that the applicant got all permissible concessions and privileges as are applicable to candidates of reserved category. The applicant has suppressed this fact and, therefore, he is not entitled to any benefit and petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the case of S.P. Chingalvaraya vs Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853. The applicant has mispresented before this Tribunal and for this reason also, he is not entitled to any relief from this Tribunal. Reliance has been placed in this connection on the case of Vijay Syal vs S/O Punjab (2003) 9 SCC 401 = 2003 (2) SCSLJ 134.
5. It is further contended that before opting for VRS- 2019, the applicant was repeatedly instructed by the respondents to obtain and produce his caste validity certificate. But the applicant ignored these instructions. These letters are produced at Annexure R- 6 collectively. The respondents further contend that the 6 OA No. 218/2022 applicant had given commitment before the respondents that he would produce caste validity certificate. However, instead of meeting his commitment, he filed Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court seeking some undue relief. They contend that they had received a complaint regarding securing job of the candidates producing fake certificate of caste. That complaint is under investigation and the applicant was, therefore, asked to produce the caste validity certificate from the competent authority and, therefore, the applicant was permitted to take VRS subject to the condition of producing the caste validity certificate. As per existing guidelines of DoPT, caste certificate of candidates/employees is necessary through proper channel at the time of initial employment / promotion as well as in the cases where the candidates got appointment against vacancies reserved for SC/ST/OBC's on the basis of fake certificate. They, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the application.
6. Applicant filed rejoinder in which he contends that the applicant was appointed as Chowkidar regular 7 OA No. 218/2022 Group 'D' post. Therefore, there was no question of appointment on the basis of caste. Though the applicant presented his caste certificate pursuant to the directions of the respondents, the applicant has not availed any benefit of his caste. The applicant has not suppressed any fact from this Tribunal.
7. Applicant further contends that during pendency of this application, Government of India vide Office Memorandum dated 30th November, 2021 issued instructions to the effect that non-payment / delay in payment of retirement benefits on account of delay in verification of caste certificate in respect of retiring employees shall be completed expeditiously and in any case, well before the date of superannuation of the concerned employee unless departmental or judicial proceedings are pending against the retiring employee, retiral benefits should not be withheld. The applicant was appointed under Group 'D' and because of his hard work, he came to be confirmed in service.
8. He contends that the applicant has no concern with the complaint which is under investigation 8 OA No. 218/2022 because the applicant did not take any benefit of caste during his service. The caste certificate was produced only on the instructions of the respondents.
9. The respondents filed reply to rejoinder. They contend that the applicant's demand is premature. The date of birth of the applicant is 15th August, 1962. Thus, payment of gratuity becomes due on 01st September, 2022. Despite this, applicant has filed this OA on 15th April, 2021 for release of all retirement benefits. They further contend that during the pendency of this OA, the applicant made online application for getting the caste validity certificate which has been acknowledged by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 16th June, 2022. They further contend that the applicant suppressed this fact of making online application to Caste Scrutiny Committee even at the time of filing rejoinder. The applicant is, therefore, not entitled to any relief. Therefore, this Tribunal cannot entertain this OA till the Caste Scrutiny Committee renders its decision. They contend that on one hand, the applicant is approaching the Tribunal disputing the 9 OA No. 218/2022 action of respondents of withholding pensionary benefits and on the other hand, the applicant has approached the Caste Scrutiny Committee for validation of caste. At the time of filing reply to rejoinder, no disciplinary action was initiated against the applicant because the applicant has approached the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
10. They further contend that the applicant has availed benefits of reservation policy which is evident from following documents:
(a) Copy of gradation list of TM cadre as on 28/11/2001 wherein the applicant's seniority number is shown as 68, caste category is shown as ST and marks obtained is 43%. If this is compared with open category employees bearing seniority no. 80 and marks obtained were 47.07%. By virtue of such comparison, it clearly reveals that though applicant is junior at entry level, still he got promoted earlier as compared to the employee at serial no. 80 by the name of Shri S.R. Jadhav.10 OA No. 218/2022
(b) Copy of reservation roster register maintained as on 30/09/1997, wherein name of applicant is on page no. 172 thereby occupying ST point/vacancy at position number 04 of 40-point reservation roster. The said reservation roster is at annexure- R-13.
(c) Copy of DPC assessment sheet dated 27th November, 2019 wherein the applicant was considered under ST category for Time Bound Promotion (TBP) which reveals that the applicant got benefit of caste. His serial no. is at 28. The said DPC assessment sheet is at annexure R-14.
10.1 This reveals, one way or the other, directly or indirectly, that applicant got the benefit of reservation policy and, therefore, he cannot contend that he is not obliged to produce caste validity certificate. The retirement benefits were rightly withheld by the respondents and no interference at the hands of this Tribunal is called for.
11 OA No. 218/2022
11. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. R.T. Diwate and learned counsel for the respondents, Dr V.S. Masurkar.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the initial appointment of the applicant was not on the basis of caste. And, therefore, his entry was in the open category. He did not receive any benefit of caste during his upward progression. He got all the time bound promotions without availing the benefit of caste. He submitted that the respondents have not adduced any evidence to show that the appointment of the applicant was against post reserved for reserved category candidates. Therefore, no inference can be drawn that the applicant was appointed on the basis of caste. He submitted that the applicant has made online application for validation of caste. But that does not obliterate the fact that the applicant's appointment was not against the post reserved for SC/ST candidates. He further submitted that the DPC assessment sheet also does not indicate that the applicant got the benefit of his caste. He, therefore, prayed for allowing the application. 12 OA No. 218/2022
13. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has produced the caste certificate on his own which indicates that the applicant was appointed on the post reserved for ST category. He contended that in the service book, the caste of the applicant is mentioned as Scheduled Tribe. The name of the applicant figures in the roster for TM cadre at serial no. 25 and his caste is mentioned as ST. This clearly shows that the applicant was appointed on the basis of caste. The applicant vide letter dated 01st October, 2018 (Annexure R-6) has produced his caste certificate. This shows that the applicant had availed the benefit of caste. The applicant got promotions and he retired as Assistant Engineer which itself bears a testimony to the fact that he was promoted by availing the benefit of caste. He further contended that the respondents have annexed Minutes of the Meeting with the employees against the complaint of bogus caste certificate at Annexure R-8. This Minutes indicates that the applicant has stated that the online application for caste validation will be submitted soon. He contended that this voluminous 13 OA No. 218/2022 evidence is enough for drawing the conclusion that the applicant availed the benefit of caste.
14. He further submitted that the time bound promotion scheme floated vide letter dated 23rd March, 2010 shows that the concession is given to reserved category candidates. The applicant secured 43 percent and still as per Provisional Gradation List (Annexure R-
12) is placed at seniority no. 68 whereas Shri S. R. Jadhav though he scored more marks i.e. 47.07 marks, he was placed below the applicant. This itself is indicative of the fact that the applicant got promotion by availing the benefit of caste. He contended that if he had not taken the benefit of caste, he would not have made online application for validation of caste certificate. On one hand he claims that he did not take any benefit of caste but on the other hand, he makes online application for validation of caste. All these evidences are suggestive of the fact that the applicant availed the benefit of caste. His employment was also on the basis of caste. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of voluntary retirement shows that the same was granted 14 OA No. 218/2022 on the condition of producing caste validity certificate. Applicant has not prayed for setting aside this condition. The relief which is not asked for cannot be granted. Therefore, this application deserves to be summarily dismissed.
15. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for their respective parties.
16. The moot question in this case is whether the applicant sought employment on the basis of caste. Admittedly, the applicant has produced caste certificate indicating that he belongs to Tokre Koli which is a scheduled tribe.
17. Mere production of caste certificate does not necessarily lead to an inference that the employment was secured by the applicant on the basis of caste. The order of appointment (Annexure R-1) does not indicate that the applicant was called upon to produce caste certificate. In addition to this, what the respondents are required to prove is that advertisement was given in 15 OA No. 218/2022 which some posts were reserved for SC/ST categories, the applicant made application for that post mentioning his caste indicating that he wanted to avail the benefit of caste. No such evidence is forthcoming. The respondents have not even made any pleading in this regard. In the absence of this evidence, it cannot be concluded that the applicant's appointment was on the basis of caste.
18. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that the appointment of the applicant was not on the basis of caste.
19. Now the question is whether the applicant obtained the benefit of caste. The applicant has produced the scheme of time bound promotion. Para 4.3 of the said scheme reads thus:-
"4.3 Performance Ratings in ACRs/ APARs: The ACRs/ APARs of the previous 5 (five) years shall be taken in to consideration, for assessing fitness of eligible Non-
Executives of various grades on the following fitness criteria:-
S1. Scale Category Grading Criteria
No.
1 NE1 - NE2; NE2 - NE3; OC No Adverse, not more than
NE3 - NE4; NE4 - NE5 four Average
SC/ST No Adverse
2 NE5 - NE6; NE6 - NE7; OC No Adverse, not more than
NE7 - NE8 two Average
SC/ST No Adverse, not more than
three Average
16 OA No. 218/2022
3 NE8 - NE9; NE9 - NE10; OC No Adverse, not more than
NE10 - NE11 one Average
SC/ST No Adverse, not more than
two Average
BSNL is in process of implementing Performance Management System (PMS) for its employees. Evaluation of performance of employees based on the scheme will be kept in consideration as and when it is implemented."
20. In terms of this para, it is seen that in scale of NE1- NE2; NE2- NE3; NE3- NE4; NE4 - NE5 for open category candidates, grading criteria is "no adverse, not more than four average, for SC/ST categories, no adverse". For NE5-NE6; NE6 - NE7; NE7- NE8, for open category, grading criteria is" no adverse, not more than two average and for SC/ST category, grading criteria is no adverse, not more than three average". For NE8 - NE9; NE9 - NE10; NE10- NE11, for open category candidates, grading criteria is "no adverse, not more than one average, for SC/ST categories, grading criteria is no adverse, not more than two average". This indicates that for SC/ST candidates, concession is given in grading criteria. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the applicant that no concession is contemplated in time 17 OA No. 218/2022 bound promotion scheme to reserved category candidates.
21. The question is whether the applicant got the benefit of this concession. So far as Gradation List is concerned, the applicant's name is shown at serial no. 68 and he has secured 43 percent marks. Whereas the candidate at serial no. 80 had got 47.07 percent marks. Simply on the basis of this Gradation List, it cannot be concluded that the applicant was given the benefit of caste and he was placed above the candidate who has secured more marks. If this Gradation List (Annexure R-
12) dated 28th November, 2001 is seen, it is seen that it is Provisional Gradation List to the Restructured cadre of TM. This letter however, mentions that the seniority to the restructured cadre of TM (Telecom Mechanic) has been fixed as per instructions contained in the DOT, New Delhi letter No: 7-5151/97-NCG dated 21.09.1999 endorsed vide CGMT, Mumbai letter No: A/OTB-LTTA- ORDERS/10 dated 27.10.1999 i.e. post training marks should be the criteria in regard to fixation of inter-se- seniority of officials of the select panel of a particular 18 OA No. 218/2022 year irrespective of the batch in which the officials go for training against the vacancies of a particular year.
22. This letter nowhere indicates that the restructured cadre was prepared having regard to the caste of the candidates. This is prepared having regard to the post training marks of the select panel of a particular area irrespective of the batch in which the official goes for training against the vacancies of a particular year. If the seniority list is minutely perused, it shows that at serial no. 68, the name of the applicant appears and percentage was 43%. Percentage of Shri S.R. Jadhav of OC category is shown to be as 47.07 percent and his serial no. is 80. At serial no. 69, the name of B.N. Shelke appears and his percentage is shown to be as 42.07%. At serial no. 70, the name of candidate is P.R. Gaikwad of open category and his percentage is 42.05%, then comes the name of N.N. Sultane who is also open category candidate and his percentage is shown to be as 42.04%, then comes the name of R.A. Tiwari at serial no. 73 who is also an open category candidate, his percentage is shown to be as 41.02%. Serial nos. 74 & 19 OA No. 218/2022 75 are the names of G.K. Mali and S.M. Gawande of open category and their percentage is 40.09% and 48.06% respectively.
23. This indicates that the open category candidates who had secured less marks than S.R. Jadhav (serial no.
80) have been placed above S.R. Jadhav. If these candidates had been placed below S.R. Jadhav, then there would have been some substance in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant was placed above S.R. Jadhav because of his caste. This list also cannot be relied upon because it is the provisional list. Moreover, it lacks sufficient details. The last column cannot be read at all. The last but one column is percentage of marks obtained in REST cadre and the last column is "Date of ....." further part is not available. Therefore, on the basis of this incomplete information, it cannot be concluded that the seniority of the applicant was fixed by giving benefit of caste. The respondents have not produced the minutes or the concerned letter on the basis of which this Gradation List has been prepared i.e. Instructions of DoT in letter 20 OA No. 218/2022 No: 7-5151/97-NCG dated 21.09.1999 endorsed vide CGMT, Mumbai letter No: A/OTB-LTTA-ORDERS/10 dated 27.10.1999 mentioned in Annexure R-12. Therefore, in the absence of these instructions and in the absence of the complete details in the Gradation List, it is difficult to infer that the applicant was promoted by giving him benefit of caste.
24. Now, this takes me to the question of time bound promotion given to the applicant in the year 2019. The respondents have produced the minutes of DPC Meeting held on 27th November, 2019 in the office of the Telecom District Manager Buldana at Khamgaon for considering First, Second and Third Time Bound Promotion in NEPP. The applicant is at serial no. 28 and he was found fit for Second and Third Time Bound Promotion. As indicated earlier, the concession is provided to reserved category candidates while considering their candidature for time bound promotion. The criteria for time bound promotion is rating in the APAR i.e. good. The Assessment Sheet shows that in column no. 11, the relevant years were 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and the 21 OA No. 218/2022 applicant has been graded as Good for all these years. This clearly shows that the applicant was not given any benefit of caste. He was never graded as average. In these circumstances, there is no force in the contention of the respondents that the applicant got the benefit of caste while granting time bound promotion.
25. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the applicant has made application for online caste validation certificate, this application should be adjourned sine die till decision is rendered or it should be dismissed. This submission would have gained some weight if the respondents had produced some evidence to show that the applicant was given the benefit of caste. As indicated earlier, it is not shown that the applicant has been given the benefit of caste. In these circumstances, this submission cannot be considered.
26. It is true that in the case of Chief Regional Officer versus Pradip and another, (2020) 11 SCC 144, it has been held that where a candidate had been appointed to a reserved post on the basis of the claim that he or she was a member of the group for which the reservation is 22 OA No. 218/2022 intended, the invalidation of the claim to belong to that group would, as a necessary consequence, render the appointment void ab initio. Same principle has been laid down in the cases of Chandrabhan vs State of Maharashtra, (2021) 9 SCC 804, Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai vs Mahesh Kumar Gonnade and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 866 and Bhubaneswar Development Authority vs Madhumita Das & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 3320 of 2023 (Supreme Court). In all these cases, the facts were that the concerned employees were appointed on a reserved post by producing the certificate which was proved to be false. These decisions can be easily distinguished with the present case because in the case at hand, there is no evidence to show that the applicant was appointed to a reserved post.
27. It is settled law that pension can be withheld only when judicial proceedings or departmental enquiry is pending against the retiring employee.
28. In the case of Namdeo s/o Dashrath Nikhare versus Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya and others in Writ Petition No. 547/2021 23 OA No. 218/2022 (Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court), it has been held thus:-
"5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have perused the documents on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner entered in service on being appointed as Junior Clerk on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner's tribe claim was invalidated on 08.03.2010. However till his superannuation the petitioner was not placed on a supernumerary post. Consequently, he retired from the post of Storekeeper on which he was promoted on 24.05.2011 in the open category.
6. In these facts when the petitioner was not placed on a supernumerary post, there does not appear to be any justification for withholding the petitioner's retirement benefits. No departmental proceedings were held against the petitioner prior to his superannuation on the basis of which he could be deprived of his pensionary benefits. By the order dated 03.07.2020 the petitioner is being paid provisional pension subject to finalization of his pension case. The impugned communication does not seek to deprive the petitioner of such retirement benefits. Thus as the petitioner has superannuated without being placed on a supernumerary post, there is no reason to withhold his pensionary benefits. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled for the relief of grant of retirement benefits."
29. Thus, in the case of Namdeo s/o Dashrath Nikhare (supra), the caste of the employee was invalidated by the competent authority. No departmental proceedings were initiated against the said employee at the time of his superannuation. And, therefore, he was 24 OA No. 218/2022 entitled to pension even if caste certificate was invalidated. Thus, even when the caste certificate is invalidated, the pensionary benefits can be denied only after holding departmental enquiry. In the case at hand, no departmental enquiry was held and, therefore, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents was legal and proper.
30. In the case at hand, admittedly, at the time of retirement of the applicant, no case was pending against him nor any departmental enquiry was initiated against him. In these circumstances, respondents were not right in withholding the pensionary benefits of the applicant.
31. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the appointment of the applicant was against reserved post or he had gained promotion on the strength of caste, the respondents do not stand to gain. As held in the case of Namdeo s/o Dashrath Nikhare (supra) and in terms of Rule 69(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, pensionary benefits can be withheld only when disciplinary or judicial proceedings are pending at the time of retirement of an employee. As indicated earlier, 25 OA No. 218/2022 no judicial or departmental proceeding was pending against the applicant and, therefore, the respondents were not right in withholding the pension of the applicant.
32. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant has not prayed for setting aside the condition in Annexure- A-2 of withholding of pensionary benefits till the production of caste validity certificate from the competent authority. He submitted that without making a specific prayer in this direction, Tribunal cannot grant such a relief. He contended that relief which is not claimed by the applicant, cannot be granted by this Tribunal.
33. It is settled law that relief not asked for, cannot be granted. However, this rule has an exception. If there are sufficient pleadings indicating that the relief is in fact claimed but in the prayer clause, it has not been specifically claimed, in such a case, Courts/Tribunals can grant such a relief to do substantial justice. Purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary to know which allegations he has to meet. If there are no pleading, no 26 OA No. 218/2022 prayer, Courts/Tribunals cannot grant such a relief because the other party has no opportunity to meet these allegations. If the parties have approached the trial with full knowledge of the issues involved in the case, in such an eventuality, petitioner cannot be non-suited simply on the basis of technicality. Relief can be granted if it necessarily arises from the pleadings.
34. In the case at hand, the applicant has made sufficient pleadings indicating that he has challenged the order containing the condition of withholding pension till the production of caste validity certificate from the competent authority. In para 4.8, the applicant has made following allegations:-
"Applicant says and submits that at this stage it is most pertinent & relevant to note that at the time of his voluntary retirement under the Scheme of 2019 i.e. on the date of his voluntary retirement from service of BSNL he was neither facing any Department Disciplinary Proceeding nor any Judicial Proceeding nor was he under suspension. And therefore, it was legally not open & permissible for Resp. Nos. 1 and 3 to withhold and/or not to pay the financial benefits referred supra to the applicant. This is also because, in the light of provisions of Rule 9 (4) r/w Rule 69 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 it is only in case of employee(s) against whom any Departmental or Judicial proceedings are instituted of are pending against a retiring employee(s) he is necessarily & mandatorily required to be paid all the pensionary benefits as 27 OA No. 218/2022 admissible under Rules and those cannot be withheld on any ground whatsoever."
35. In para 4.12, the applicant has made following averments:-
"Applicant therefore on the basis of the above referred directives issued by Resp. No.2/Union of India emphatically says and submits that it was/is simply not open & permissible for Resp. Nos. 1 and 3 to withhold payment of financial benefits flowing from the "BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2019" as also all the terminal benefits to him on the pretext that he had not done online registration to get his Caste Validity Certificate. In other words, in view of the specific directives issued by Resp. No. 2 through the communications dated 16/10/2020 and 24/12/2020 it was/is not permissible for Resp. Nos 1 and 3 deny payment to the applicant of all his retiral & terminal dues post his voluntary retirement from service of the BSNL."
36. From these pleadings, it is clear that the applicant has specifically alleged that the respondents cannot withhold pensionary benefits when no departmental or judicial proceedings is pending against him on the date of retirement. The respondents have also contended that the pensionary benefits are withheld because the applicant has failed to produce the caste validity certificate. These allegations in pleadings and affidavit in reply show that that relief of setting aside the condition of withholding pension and pensionary benefits 28 OA No. 218/2022 necessarily arises and it cannot be said that the respondents are taken by surprise. In this view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to grant the relief claimed by the applicant by setting aside the condition of withholding pension subject to production of caste validity certificate in order of VRS dated 31st January, 2020 (Annexure- A-2).
37. In view of the above, following order is passed:-
(i) OA is allowed with no order as to costs.
(ii) Condition of withholding pension subject to production of caste validity certificate in order of VRS dated 31st January, 2020 (Annexure- A-2) is set aside.
(iii) The respondents are directed to release the pensionary benefits in accordance with the VRS scheme with immediate effect, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of passing of this order.
(iv) Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
(Justice M.G. Sewlikar)
Member (J)
nk.
Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari
Nicky
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=
5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e2 3829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbd Kumari d397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.03 13:14:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0