Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. Prem Shanker Mani Tripathi vs Union Of India on 16 January, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi OA No.139/2014 Thursday, this the 16th day of January, 2014 Honble Shri G.George Paracken, Member (J) Dr. Prem Shanker Mani Tripathi S/o Late Shri Pashupatinath Tiwary Aged about 69 years Retired Director Scientist, CIMFR R/o F-26, Second Floor Nizamuddin West, New Delhi-110013. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nilansh Gaur) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through its Secretary Ministry of Science and Technology Government of India Technology Bhawan Mehrauli, New Delhi-110016. 2. Director General Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Anusandhan Bhawan 2, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. Respondents ORDER(ORAL)
Shri G.George Paracken, M(J) In this Original Application, the applicant is seeking a direction to the respondents to invoke Rule 30 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to allow him the benefit of addition of 1.7 years more of his service to his qualifying service to make it the maximum 33 years and thereafter to recalculate his pension and fix it accordingly with arrears w.e.f. 01.02.2005.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant has retired from service on 31.01.2005. According to him, he had acquired highest special qualification i.e. PHD in Chemistry (Radiation and Nuclear Chemistry) from Banaras Hindu University in the year 1970. Therefore, the Respondents should have given him the benefit of Rule 30 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The said rule reads as under:-
(1) A Govt. servant who retires from a service or post after 31st March, 1960, shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension) the actual period not exceeding one-fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of retirement exceeded twenty-five years or a period of five years, whichever is less, if the service or post to which the Government servant is appointed is one-
(a) for which postgraduate research, or specialist qualification for experience in scientific, technological or professional fields, is essential; and
(b) to which candidates of more than twenty-five years of age are normally recruited.
3. According to the applicant, he had actually rendered the qualifying service of 31 years and 5 months and short of only one year and seven months to complete the total qualifying service of 33 years to get the maximum amount of pension admissible under the rules. He has further submitted that he retired on 31.01.2005 and only a few months before his retirement he came to know about the aforesaid rule under which he was entitled for additional qualifying service. He has also stated that he made a representation to the Respondents on 17.06.2013 to grant him the aforesaid benefit.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant has also submitted that the cause of action in this case is a continuous one as the applicant is seeking increase in his monthly pension.
5. In my considered opinion, this is a highly belated petition. The question is not regarding the admissibility of the benefits as provided in Rule 30 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Before the Applicant retired on 31.01.2005, he did not take any steps to get the said benefit. As a result, the Respondents also had no opportunity to consider whether the Applicant was entitled for the said benefits. The Applicant admittedly retired on 31.05.2005 and has been drawing his pension for the last nearly nine years. Now, the Applicant wants the Respondents to consider the admissibility of the said benefits. Hence, in my considered view, it is not a case of continuous cause of action. There shall be a difference between the payment of pension which is a continuous cause of action and consideration of the case of the Applicant for the benefit under Rule 30 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 after a delay of nine years.
6. In view of the above position, in my considered view, this OA is not fit to be admitted.
7. The Apex Court in the case of D.C.S. Negi Vs. U.O.I. & Others (SLP (Civil) No.7956/2011 CC No.3709/2011) decided on 11.03.2011 held that the applications which are time barred are not to be entertained by this Tribunal. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:-
Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to note that for quite some time, the Administrative Tribunals established under the Act have been entertaining and deciding the applications filed under Section 19 of the Act in complete disregard of the mandate of Section 21, which reads as under:-
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.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section(2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.
A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21 (1) or Section 21 (2) or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21 (1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21 (3).
8. This OA is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(G. George Paracken) Member (J) /vb/