Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Sheela Devi W/O Late Inder Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 30 November, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.4263/2011 Wednesday, this the 30th day of November 2011 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) 1. Smt. Sheela Devi w/o late Inder Singh 2. Ms. Himshikha d/o late Inder Singh 3. Sh. Krishan Kant s/o late Inder Singh 4. Km. Kamini (Minor daughter) d/o late Inder Singh (through her mother & natural guardian Smt. Sheela Devi) All r/o H.No.90, Near Mata Chowk Village & PO Chhattarpur New Delhi-30 5. Smt. Archana (Married daughter) w/o Shri Amit d/o late Inder Singh r/o Village & PO Duhai District Ghaziabad (UP) 6. Ms. Amrita (Married daughter) w/o Shri Naveen Kumar d/o late Inder Singh R/o 63-A, K-1 Exten. Gurudwara Road Mohan Garden, New Delhi-59 .. Applicants (By Advocate: Shri Avinash Tyagi) Versus 1. Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through its Chairman DTC Head Quarters IP Estate, New Delhi-2 2. Depot Manager Delhi Transport Corporation Govt. of NCT of Delhi Ambedkar Nagar Depot, New Delhi-62 ..Respondents O R D E R (ORAL)
The applicants, who are LRs of the deceased Shri Inder Singh, ex-Conductor, Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), have filed the present OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:
(a) quash and set aside the Order no.AND/GO/2011/2110 dated 18.05.2011 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure A-1) with all consequential benefits and for all intents and purposes;
(b) issue necessary directions to the respondents to grant pensionery benefits to the applicants from the date of the entitlement of the applicants and pay the arrears thereof after correct fixation with all consequential benefits,
(c) call for the records from the respondents in respect of Late Sh. Inder Singh.
(d) pass any other or further order(s) in favour of the applicants, which this Honble Tribunal deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. As can be seen from the relief clause, the grievance of the applicants is regarding the impugned order dated 18.5.2011 whereby applicant No.1 was informed that pursuant to the order passed by this Tribunal dated 13.8.2009 in TA-583/2009, a cheque dated 4.1.2010 amounting to Rs.1 lac on account of settlement of all claims was handed over to applicant No.1 against proper receipt. It was further mentioned in the said order that pursuant to the application filed under Section 27 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for execution of the order dated 13.8.2009 in TA-583/2009, a cheque dated 24.9.2010 amounting to Rs.5700/- towards gratuity amount was also delivered and also that another cheque dated 8.2.2011 amounting to Rs.29663.34 towards CPF has been delivered to applicant No.1, as such nothing is due to the applicants.
3. The applicants have prayed in the OA that they are also entitled to the pensionary benefits.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for applicants at admission stage and I am of the view that the present OA is wholly misconceived and amounts to abuse of process of law and is required to be dismissed at the admission stage. It may be stated here that services of the deceased employee were terminated by the DTC w.e.f. 31.10.1995. Appeal filed by the deceased against the removal was also rejected. Matter was carried to the High Court by filing writ petition (CWP No.6189/1999), which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and registered as TA-583/2009, which was finally disposed of by an order dated 13.8.2009. At this stage, it will be useful to quote operative portion of the aforesaid order, which thus reads:-
14. Technically for the above purpose, we quash the impugned orders. The respondents are directed to pay the legal representatives of the deceased employer, an amount of Rs.1 lakh, in settlement of all claims that he may have had in respect of wrongful action complained. This should be paid within two months. In addition if his PF claims and gratuity claims are not settled so far, or have been forfeited, that needs to be paid, as if the applicant had honourably left the services of the organization, on the date he had been removed from service. There should be expedition in such settlements, and an upper time limit is set as three months from today for passing of appropriate orders and payments.
5. Since the order of this Tribunal was not complied with by the respondents, the applicants filed MA-1364/2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.2.2011. In paragraph 5 of the said order, this Tribunal has categorically recorded that From the stand taken by the respondents in the reply, it is clear that the applicant has received a sum of Rs.1 lakh and also that applicant was held entitled to sum of Rs.52,227.84 on account of PF (Rs.25752.98 own Contribution and Rs.26428.86 Corporation Contribution) and as per the order dated 04.8.1998, the said payment was to be paid to the applicant through cheque. Thus, the vague averments made on behalf of the applicants in the rejoinder that the said payment has not been paid to the deceased employee cannot be accepted. However, it will be open for the legal representatives of the deceased employee to make appropriate representation to the authorities in case such payment has not been received
6. It was further observed in the same paragraph that The contentions raised by the respondents that the applicant is also entitled to pensionary benefits is without basis and, it is not within the scope of this Tribunal while exercising the power under Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 to issue directions over and above, the directions contained in main order against which the execution petition has been filed
7. Now the applicants have filed this OA, thereby claiming for the pensionary benefits.
8. As already stated above, the OA is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as once the applicants have been held entitled for PF amount and applicant No.1 has received a sum of Rs.52,227.84 on account of PF (Rs.25752.98 own Contribution and Rs.26428.86 Corporation Contribution), they are not entitled to the benefit under the pension scheme. It may be stated here that when the deceased Inder Singh joined the DTC on 5.5.1983, it was the CPF scheme, which was operated in the DTC. The pension scheme was introduced to its employees by the DTC pursuant to the office order No.16 dated 27.11.1992, which was not operated, as the Life Insurance Corporation backed out and it was only on 31.10.1995 the Central Government provided the necessary fund and only those employees who retired after 1.11.1995 started receiving pension. Thus, the pension scheme became operative in respect of DTC employees only after 1.11.1995. Admittedly, deceased Inder Singh was removed from service on 31.10.1995 before the said scheme was made operative. At this stage, it will be useful to quote paragraph 25 of the judgment of High Court of Delhi in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Madhu Bhushan Anand (W.P. (C) No.14027/2009 with connected writ petitions) decided on 10.8.2010 wherein it has been noticed that only those employees who retired after 1.11.1995 started receiving pension and thus reads:-
25. It may be noted that the pension scheme notified on 27.11.1992 could not be implemented because LIC backed out and it was only on 31.10.1995 did the Central Government provide the necessary fund and only those employees who retired after 1.11.1995 started receiving pension. In other words whether or not pension would have been paid remained inchoate till 31.10.1995.
9. Thus, in view of this categorical finding recorded by the High Court of Delhi, the deceased, who has been deemed to have left service w.e.f. 31.10.1995, in terms of the judgment rendered by this Tribunal, was not governed by the pension scheme. Rather the deceased was governed by the CPF scheme and the amounts admissible to the deceased under the CPF scheme have been paid to applicant No.1 pursuant to the directions given by the Tribunal in the earlier TA.
10. Accordingly, the present OA is bereft of merit and deserves to be dismissed. In case the applicants were aggrieved by the findings recorded by this Tribunal in the earlier TA to the extent that deceased was entitled to pension under the pension scheme and not under the CPF scheme, it was open for them to challenge the said order. Since the judgment rendered in the aforesaid TA has attained finality and applicant No.1 has also received payments under CPF scheme, according to me, the present OA is not maintainable, which is accordingly dismissed at admission stage.
( M L Chauhan ) Member (J) /sunil/