Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Satbir Singh Dahiya Through Shakuntla ... vs M/O Communications on 15 December, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINICIPAL BENCH
OA 2188/2013
Reserved on 13.12.2016
Pronounced on 15.12.2016
Hon'ble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Satbir Singh Dahiya,
S/o Mahipal
R/o H.No. 821/21, Street No.2,
Narender Nagar, Sonepat-131001
(Haryana)
(Retd. Sr. Accountant)
Lastly employed in the
Office of Executive Engineer,
Telecom Electrical Div-1.
'NTR' B.S.N.L., 2ns Floor,
DTO Building, Prasad Nagar,
New Delhi-110005
(Since deceased)
Through his L.R.:-
Shakuntla Devi,
WD/o Satbir Singh Dahiya,
R/o HNo.821/21, Street No.2,
Narender Nagar, Sonepat-131001 ... Applicant
(Through : Mr. Sanjeev Dahiya, Advocate)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through,
The Secretary,
Ministry of Communications and I.T.,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi.
2. Section Officer (Pay Bill-1),
(T.A. Section)
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
3. C.M.D.,
B.S.N.L.,
Bharat Sanchar Bhawan,
H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001
4. A.O (Cash)
O/O CGM 'NTR', BSNL (M),
Eastern Court,
New Delhi-110001
2
OA 2188/2013
5. C.G.M. 'NTR',
B.S.N.L.,
2nd Floor, Kidwai Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi-110001
6. Executive Engineer,
Telecom Electrical Div.-1,
'NTR' BSNL,
2nd Floor DTO Building,
Prasad Nagar, New Delhi-110005
7. Deputy Controller of Communications
Accounts office of Principle Controller
of Communications Accounts,
Delhi Region,
Ministry of Communication and I.T.,
Department of Telecommunications,
DOT Building,
Prasad Nagar, New Delhi-110005. ... Respondents
(Through: Mr. R.N.Singh and Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocates)
ORDER
This OA has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) place the service book of the applicant and other relevant documents before the Ld. Tribunal;
(ii) to treat the service periods from 01.07.1976 to 08.02.1983 and 20.10.1986 (sic 20.10.1987) to 08.09.1992 as qualifying service for retirement benefits;
(iii) to pay to the applicant the DCRG for the added qualifying service and interest as admissible upon it from 01.04.2010 till its payment;
(iv) to pass the interest as admissible on late pension, commuted pension, DCRG;
(v) to pay 'pay and allowance for the leaves' for the period from 20.03.2002 to 31.03.2002 (12 days) and interest admissible upon it till its payment;
(vi) to pay 'Increment Arrears' from 01.09.2004 to 31.03.2005 and interest accrued upon it til its actual payment.
Or/and
(vii) Any other order may be passed as the Ld.Tribunal deems fit and proper."
3OA 2188/2013 During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has since received his service book through RTI, hence relief claimed for in clause (i) stands redressed. Further he submitted that relief claimed in clauses for
(v) and (vi) of the prayer clause has also been granted to him by the respondents during pendency of the OA. Hence, OA was heard only for relief clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv).
2. The applicant was employed as a Senior Accountant in the office of respondent No. 6, from where he retired on 31.03.2010. His grievance is that his claim for DCRG was sanctioned after a delay of 14 months and his PPO was issued after a delay of 17 months. Further, while computing his service eligible for pensionary benefits, the respondents have not counted the periods between 1.07.1976 to 08.02.1983 and 20.10.1987 to 08.09.1992 as qualifying service.
3. In their reply filed on behalf of respondents 3 to 6 it has been stated that during the period 1.07.1976 to 8.02.1983, the applicant was working under respondents no. 1 and 2 and when his case for verification was referred to them they did not verify the same and returned it with the remarks that record for that period was not available. As regards the second period from 20.10.1987 to 8.09.1992, the respondents have stated that this was treated as extraordinary leave (EOL) without medical certificate and hence was non qualifying service as per the rules. During the course of arguments, the respondents have also taken a preliminary objection that the OA was barred by limitation. Further, learned counsel for the respondents argued 4 OA 2188/2013 that as far as the first period between 1.7.1976 to 8.02.1983 was concerned it pertained to 3 years prior to the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 coming into force and as such the Tribunal was barred from entertaining any OA regarding the same in terms of Section 21 (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, which reads as follows:-
"21. Limitation.- (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application.-
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. (2). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where --
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later."
4. The applicant has attached with his rejoinder a copy of his service book which he claims was received by him as a result of RTI application. Learned counsel for the respondents on instructions from the respondents stated that respondents were 5 OA 2188/2013 prepared to accept the copy of the service book filed by the applicant as true copy.
5. Leaned counsel for the applicant relying on Rule 59 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 stated that the aforesaid rule reads as follows:-
"59. Stages for the completion of pension papers (1) The Head of Office shall divide the period of preparatory work of two years referred to in Rule 58 in the following three stages:-
(a) First Stage. - Verification of service:
(i). The Head of Office shall go through the Service Book of the Government servant and satisfy himself as to whether the certificates of verification for the entire service are recorded therein.
(ii) In respect of the unverified portion or portions of service, he shall arrange to verify the portion or portions of such service, as the case may be, with reference to pay bills, acquittance rolls or other relevant records and record necessary certificates in the service book.
(iii) If the service for any period is not capable of being verified in the manner specified in sub-clause (i) and sub-
clause (ii), that period of service having been rendered by the Government servant in another office or Department, a reference shall be made to the Head of Office in which the Government servant is shown to have served during that period for the purpose of verification.
(iv) If any portion of service rendered by a Government servant is not capable of being verified in the manner specified in sub-clause (i), or sub-clause (ii), or sub-clause
(iii), or sub-clause (iii), the Government servant shall be asked to file a written statement on plain paper stating that he had in fact rendered that period of service, and shall, at the foot of the statement, make and subscribe to a declaration as to the truth of that statement, and shall in support of such declaration produce all documentary evidence and furnish all information which is in his power to produce or furnish.
(v) The Head of Office shall, after taking into consideration the facts in the written statement and the evidence produced and the information burnished by that Government servant in support of the said period of service, admit that portion of service as having been rendered for the purpose of calculating the pension of that Government servant. 6 OA 2188/2013
(b) Second Stage. -Making good omission in the service book-
(i) The Head of Office while scrutinising the certificates of verification of service, shall also identify if there are any other omissions, imperfections or deficiencies which have a direct bearing on the determination of emoluments and the service qualifying for pension.
(ii) Every effort shall be made to complete the verification of service, as in clause (a) and to make good omissions, imperfections or deficiencies referred to in sub-clause (i) of this clause. Any omission, imperfection or deficiencies including the portion of service shown as unverified in the Service Book which it has not been possible to verify in accordance with the procedure laid down in Clause (a) shall be ignored and service qualifying for pension shall be determined on the basis of the entries in the Service Book.
(iii) Calculation of average emoluments.- For the purpose of calculation of average emoluments, the Head of Office shall verify from the Service Book the correctness of the emoluments drawn or to be drawn during the last ten months of service. In order to ensure that the emoluments during the last ten months of service, have been correctly shown in the Service Book, the Head of Office may verify the correctness of emoluments for the period of twenty-four months only preceding the date of retirement of a Government servant, and not for any period prior to that date."
He argued that a mere reading of the aforesaid rule would make it clear that duty is cast upon the Head of Office to verify the service rendered by the applicant by any of the means given in the rule. In this case, the service book of the applicant was available. Yet without following the procedure provided for in the above rule, the respondents have not verified his service and left the period 1.07.1976 to 8.02.1983 as unverified. Consequently, it has not been taken into account for the purpose of retiral benefits.
6. As regards, the second period between 20.10.1987 to 8.09.1992, learned counsel for the applicant relied on Rule 21 of the CCS (Pension) Rules which provides as follows:- 7 OA 2188/2013
"21. Counting of periods spent on leave All leave during service for which leave salary is payable and all extraordinary leave granted on medical certificate shall count as qualifying service:
Drawing my attention to page 60 of the service book of the applicant, he has stated that the period of extraordinary leave granted to him had been converted into extraordinary leave on medical certificate and was, therefore, eligible to be counted as qualifying service in terms of Rule 21 of the CCS (Pension) Rules extracted above. He further submitted that the applicant's increments had also been recalculated as is evident from the endorsement made on page 60 of the service book.
7. Per contra, Shri R.N. Singh, drew my attention to page 38 of the service book to say that the leave sanctioned to the applicant was extraordinary leave without medical certificate.
Shri Singh further drew my attention to page 46 of the service book to say that the period between 1.07.1982 to 27.08.1982 had been treated as dies-non.
8. I have heard both sides and have perused the material on record. I first deal with the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for respondents. The first objection was that this OA was time barred inasmuch as the applicant was claiming counting of service periods between 1.07.1982 to 27.08.1982 and 20.10.1987 to 8.09.1992 several years later. Shri Singh argued that the applicant's contention that he came to know about non-counting of this period only when his PPO was 8 OA 2188/2013 released cannot be accepted as he must have been communicated the orders regarding grant of extraordinary leave as well as treating the period as dies-non. The applicant, on the other hand, claimed that he had not received any such orders and came to know about these periods only when his PPO was issued. Be that as it may, since the issue here relates to the counting of service for the purpose of pension, this is a recurring cause of action and in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R.Gupta Vs. Union of India and Others (1995) SCC 5 628) limitation in my opinion shall not apply to this case. Hence this objection of the respondents is rejected.
9. The next preliminary objection of the respondents was that this Tribunal was barred from entertaining any application regarding the period 1976 to 1983 in terms of Section 21 (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act extracted above. However, in my opinion this objection also cannot be sustained as the respondents have not produced any orders passed and communicated to the applicant at that time. Therefore, Section 21(2) cannot be applied in this case. Thus, this objection is also rejected.
10. As regards the first period between 1.7.1976 to 8.2.1983, the respondents have stated in their affidavit that it was not verified by respondents 1 and 2, as records pertaining to that period were not available. This contention of the respondents is unacceptable. The service book of the applicant is available and, therefore, can very well be used to verify this period. Even otherwise, the procedure as laid down in Rule 59 of the CCS 9 OA 2188/2013 (Pension) Rules extracted above, needs to be followed before coming to the conclusion that this period cannot be verified. There is no evidence of this procedure having been followed in the instant case. Thus, the respondents have clearly erred in computing the applicant's pensionary benefits without taking this period into account.
11. As regards the second period, there is evidence on record to show (page 60 of the service book) that the extraordinary leave granted to the applicant had been converted into extraordinary leave on medical certificate. In terms of Rule 21 of the CCS (Pension) Rules extracted above, the period of extraordinary leave converted into extraordinary leave on medical certificate also deserves to be counted for pensionary benefits. The respondents have obviously not taken this endorsement into account while computing the retiral benefits of the applicant.
12. The applicant has also claimed that his pension was released 17 months after his retirement and his DCRG was released 14 months after his retirement. The respondents have not given any justification for this delay. Hence, as per Rules, the applicant shall also be entitled to interest on delayed payment of pension as well as DCRG.
13. Resultantly, the OA succeeds. The respondents are directed to re-calculate the pensionary benefits of the applicant in terms of observations made above within a period of 60 days 10 OA 2188/2013 from receipt of certified copy of this order. The applicant shall also be entitled to arrears arising out of such recalculation. He shall also be entitled to interest at current GPF deposit rates restricted to the period from 31.05.2013 i.e date of filing of OA to the date of actual payment. The applicant shall also be entitled to interest at current GPF deposit rate for the delay of 17 months and 14 months in release of his pension as well as DCRG respectively.
14. The aforesaid payments shall be made within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) Member (A) 'sk'