Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. Vishwa Nath Vashist vs Government Of India Through on 2 November, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.3920 of 2011 New Delhi this the 2nd day of November, 2011 Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) Dr. Vishwa Nath Vashist, 79 years, Ex-Joint Advisor (Scientist/F), CSIR, s/o Late Shri Ram Lal Vashist, R/o 614, Pocket E, Mayur Vihar Phase 2, Delhi-110091. .... Applicant ( By Advocate Shri K.K. Sharma ) VERSUS 1. Government of India through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, New Delhi. 2. The Director General, Council for Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110011. .. Respondents O R D E R (Oral)
By filing the present Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
(1) Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 12.08.2011 and 12.09.2011 passed by CSIR reducing the restorable pension or ordering recovery of the excess payment of pension;
(2) Direct Respondent no.2 to restore applicants pension to its Original authorization after final assessment @ Rs.12116/- on par with Central Government pensioners;
(3) Direct Respondent No.1 to devise a method/suitable formula for absorbee pensioners to avoid drop in pension so that they are treated as par with other Central Government pensioners in accordance with the spirit of Honble Supreme Courts order/judgment dated 1.05.1998 on parity;
(4) Direct respondents to pay the cost of this uncalled for litigation thrust upon the applicant.
2. Brief facts of the case, as enumerated by the applicant in this Application are that the applicant joined CSIR in Group A service at Jammu in Regional Research Laboratory on 6.10.1960 and remained in position in the Council (Respondent NO.2) until he joined Educational Consultants India Limited (Ed.CIL) in the post of Director initially on deputation basis and finally after resigning from CSIR (Jt. Advisor) w.e.f. 15.4.1986, sought absorption in Ed.CIL and retired as its Managing Director. The applicant opted to commute 100% pension on absorption in EdCIL on 30.11.1987 as per Rule 37 of CCS Pension Rules. The applicant retired on superannuation w.e.f. 4.1.1991 as Managing Director, Ed.CIL. The applicants 1/3 restorable pension was restored after completion of 15 years of commutation on 2.12.2002 from the date of commutation i.e. 30.11.1987. It is submitted by the applicant that consequent to 6th CPC recommendations, the applicants 1/3 restorable pension was fixed at Rs.12116/- p.m. after due process of final assessment and applicant has been receiving this amount of pension till date of filing of the present OA, all these past six years. Suddenly, the respondents vide order dated 12.8.2011, the respondents have revised the pension of the applicant as Rs.10099/- plus DR from time to time w.e.f. 1.1.2006 from Rs.12116/- and ordering recovery of the excess amount of Rs.3,42,807/- from his pension without issuing any notice to the applicant. Certain other persons who are similarly placed and circumstanced as the applicant herein challenged similar action of the respondents in OAs no.710, 765, 766 and 912 of 2010 before a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Hyderabad. Recovery of the excess pension was stayed by way of interim order dated 12.7.2010. These OAs were decided by a common order dated 27.9.2011 whereby the same were partly allowed giving a direction to the 1st respondent, namely, the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare, New Delhi, to consider the representation o the absorbee pensioners regarding drop in pension and arrive at a suitable formula so that they are treated on par with other Central Government pensioners in accordance with the spirit of Honble Supreme Courts judgment and issue appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The applicant herein is seeking similar relief and until such a decision is taken, no recovery be effected. Since the applicant is similarly placed as the applicants in the aforesaid OAs, there is no warrant for subjecting the applicant herein to treatment different from the one meted out to the applicants in the aforesaid OAs. The applicant has been awaiting the outcome of the pending cases referred to above with the hope and understanding that he too would be given the same treatment as is meted out to the applicants in those cases being similarly situated. After those cases are decided vide order dated 27.9.2011, as at Annexure A-4, the applicant made a representation on 3.10.2011 to the respondent - CSIR against the impugned orders of recovery as at Annexure A-2, seeking, inter alia, the benefit of the order of the Hyderabad Bench. The applicant has not received any response from the respondents to his aforesaid representation. Apprehending that the respondents may initiate recovery without deciding his representation, the applicant has filed the present Application seeking the reliefs as mentioned above. The applicant has challenged the action of the respondents on the grounds, inter alia, that the respondent no.2 has violated the basic principles of natural justice vide the impugned orders in ordering recovery of stated/alleged excess payment of pension without giving an opportunity to the applicant and that too after a period of six years, reducing the applicants pension to Rs.10099/- p.m. from 12116/- p.m. which pension was effective from 1.1.2006 consequent upon 6th Pay Commissions recommendations; the respondents have totally ignored the legal position with regard to reduction in pension and resultant recovery of excess payment of pension as mentioned in Ground B. of the Application; Rule 70 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 protects the 1/3 resotrable pension and the same cannot be revised to the disadvantage of the applicant six years after it was authorized after final assessment; & reliance has been placed upon the order/judgment dated 27.9.2011 passed by the Hyderabad Bench in Original Applications No.710, 785, 766 & 912 of 2010, a copy of which is at Pages 24 to 39 of the paperbook.
3. At the hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have already started recovery from the pension of the applicant from the month of November, 2011. He submits that the applicant would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider and decide his pending representation preferred against the aforesaid action of the respondents, as referred to above, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within the fixed time frame. He also requests that this Application may also be treated as a supplementary representation of the applicant. He further submits that recovery that has been started may be stayed till the final decision is taken by the respondents on the applicants representation.
4. In all fairness, the respondent CSIR should have decided the applicants representation having regard to the action respondent No.1 may have taken in terms of the directions issued by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in the cases referred to above. They should have also considered if the applicant is similarly placed as the applicants in the OAs decided by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal and if so, whether he too is entitled to the same benefit, in particular, the benefit of the formula, if any, which respondent no.1 may have devised in compliance with the direction of the Tribunal, instead of doing that the respondents have in fact started making recovery. Before proceeding any further in the matter, the respondent CSIR should decide the applicants representation first. The applicant too is making request to this effect.
5. In view of the limited prayer of the applicant, as mentioned above, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this Application at this stage with the directions to the respondents to consider and decide the applicants representation, as referred to above, along with the present Original Application as a supplementary representation, by passing a reasoned and speaking order as early as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. The respondents are directed not to give effect to the recovery from the pension of the applicant till the disposal of his representation.
6. In the aforesaid premises, it has not been necessary for me to go into the merits of the applicants claim. Nor the aforesaid directions are intended to operate to the prejudice to the respondents in any manner whatsoever. The respondents shall be free to take such decision as they deem appropriate in accordance with the applicable rules.
7. This Application is disposed of in the above terms.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) Member (J) /ravi/