Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Om Prakash (Retd. Store Keeper) S/O ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through General ... on 1 August, 2006
ORDER Shanker Raju, Member (J)
1. At the outset, learned proxy counsel for applicant forgoes his relief prayed under column 8 (iii) of the OA for extending the benefit of seniority with effect from 1976 - 1987. Rest of the reliefs are as follows:
Direct the respondents to release the 10 months salary amounting to Rs. 70000/- w.e.f. December 1996 to October 1997;
Direct the respondents to release the salary of 7 months amounting to Rs. 63,000/- w.e.f. 30.3.2000 to 30.10.2000; and Direct the respondents to pay the overtime dues as per calculation and release the pass and PTO in favour of the applicant.
2. A long drawn history of the litigation is emanated from OA-1176/2002, which pertained to quashing of the charge-sheet, release of balance arrears and release of salary of the applicant. Directions issued on 22.10.2002 disposed of the said OA to pass a speaking order in accordance with the claim of Rs. 3,75,638/-. Contempt petition No. 126/2000 was disposed of on 19.9.2000 resulted in payment of Rs. 43,877/- to the applicant. Although a charge sheet was issued but applicant, who superannuated on 31.5.2002, ultimately filed OA-1176/2002, which was on disposal and on filing CP resulted in an order passed by the respondents whereby a cheque amounting to Rs. 91,924/- was given to the applicant. An order passed on 9.2.2004 by the respondents directed a recovery of Rs. 13,003/- and a major penalty order dated 17.6.2004 imposed upon a penalty of recovery of Rs. 3,974.62 against which an appeal has already been preferred.
3. OA-268/2005 filed before the Tribunal for release of the pensionary benefits was disposed of on 4.2.2005 to release the balance amount. As a result of CP, the claim, which was not proceeded by the respondents, is the gravamen of the present OA.
4. At the outset, learned Counsel for applicant stated that the arrears of salary during which the period the applicant was prevented from working without any fault attributable to him, denial thereof without holding any disciplinary proceedings and imposition of punishment, is illegal.
5. Learned Counsel would contend that though the applicant had worked on overtime but was not paid his legal dues as pay and allowances.
6. Learned Counsel would further contend that any implication of law, i.e., imposition of punishment, pass and PTO, etc., are withheld without any basis.
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents, at the outset, contended that the OA is barred under Rule 10 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, as the applicant has sought plural remedies. He further stated that the claim of the applicant is belated and representation would not extend the limitation, as held by the Apex Court in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan .
8. On merits, it is stated that the payment of overtime dues, issue of passes and PTO are not analogous and rest of the payments have already been paid to the applicant in compliance of the Tribunals order.
9. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties and perusing the material on record, it is trite that disputed questions of fact would not have to be gone into by the Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction in judicial review. It is, however, also trite that when a person has superannuated, the pay and allowances and legitimate dues withheld, which are not paid without any fault of the retired government servant, entails arrears and pay and allowances, which is a recurring cause of action for which no limitation is attracted.
10. In the matter of construing plural remedies in case of a retired employee, the intention of the Tribunal when it was established in 1985 was a beneficial legislation not to impede redressal of grievance or as an object of promoting multiple litigation, which includes a heavy cost to be incurred. Justice at the doorstep and at an affordable price in the form of fee, etc. was the aim and object of the Tribunal. Accordingly, having this object in mind what has been claimed by the applicant is pay and allowances during the period of service, which are not remote and also PTO and passes, which is a concession of privilege, to which a retiree is entitled in Railways.
11. Though I acknowledge that few of the payments have been made, yet without holding any disciplinary proceedings and imposition of punishment, the period of absence, as alleged by the respondents, would not entail automatic interpretation in service and as a result thereof, denial of pay and allowances for the period. This aspect of the matter has not at all been gone into by the respondents.
12. Insofar as the overtime is concerned, a legal right accrued to a government servant on working on overtime, which would not be defeated merely by passage of time as it corresponds a fundamental duty on the respondents to pay the allowances. Mere delay on a hyper technical objection is not a valid defence and is also not to be raised by the respondents as a model employer, which would defeat all canons of justice and would not be fair decision. One gets the allowances on rendering duties as a dint of work on reciprocity in lieu thereof grant of pay and allowances, privileges and concessions. Once these are not paid and withheld without justifiable and reasonable grounds, a right is accrued in favour of the claimant, which by no stretch of imagination or any logic or rationale, can be defeated by raising hyper technical plea of limitation.
13. In this view of the matter, we find that the objection raised by the respondents is misconceived and with a view to scuttle and forfeit the legitimate right of the applicant on a cause of action, which is recurring one.
14. We also find that the relief claimed by the applicant in which seniority has been forgone, if is accorded to him, would be in the shape of pay and allowances and as a retiree, it would be cruel to the applicant if he is dragged, when sustaining on pension, to file the several litigations, as the justice is not only to be done but it is manifestly seem to be done. I would be failing in administration of justice if on such a hyper technical plea, the rightful claim of the applicant is turned down. This would not be reasonable.
15. In the result, this OA stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant in the light of their instructions, rules and law on the subject pertaining to pay and allowances, overtime allowances and also release of PTO and passes. The consequential benefits of pay and allowances and other concessions would follow. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.