Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ramesh Chander Gupta vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 8 March, 2016
OA 1685/15 1 RC Gupta v. DTC & ors
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A.NO.1685 OF 2015
New Delhi, this the 8th day of March, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
.............
Ramesh Chander Gupta,
Aged 64 years,
s/o Sh.Sheoji Ram,
R/o C-1/41, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi 110053 ........ Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.R.K.Jain)
Vs.
1. Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman cum Managing Director,
I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Addl.Chief Accounts Officer (Pension),
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
3. Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Through its Regional Commissioner (Delhi-North),
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
28, Community Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Area,
Delhi 110052 ............ Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr.Manish Garg for R-1 & 2; Mr.Keshav Mohan
for R-3)
.............
Page 1 of 8
OA 1685/15 2 RC Gupta v. DTC & ors
ORDER
The applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking the following reliefs:
"I. direct the respondents to release the withheld amount of Rs.50,000/- and the recoveries made from the pension along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of retirement of the applicant i.e. 31.08.2010 till the date of payment.
II. the respondents may further be directed to pay the interest on the delayed payment of pension and other retirement dues @ 18% from the date of retirement of the applicant i.e. 31.08.2010 till the date of payment, i.e. Feb. 2011.
III. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded in favour of the applicant."
2. I have perused the O.A. and Rejoinder Reply filed by the applicant, and the Counter Replies filed by the respondents, and have heard Shri R.K.Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and S/Shri Manish Garg and Keshav Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case, which are not disputed by either side, are that while serving as an Accountant with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), the applicant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2010. He was covered by the DTC Pension Scheme. Page 2 of 8
OA 1685/15 3 RC Gupta v. DTC & ors Accordingly, the respondent-DTC determined his pension and other retirement dues. But before all the retirement dues could be released in his favour, the respondent-DTC found that a sum of Rs.20,633/- had been remitted by them to the respondent-EPFO towards the EPS-1995 in respect of the applicant for the period from January 1995 to December 2000, though such remittance was not required to be made by them to the respondent-EPFO in respect of the applicant who had opted for the DTC Pension Scheme. Therefore, the respondent-DTC, while releasing the retirement dues in favour of the applicant in February, 2011, deducted a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the commuted value of pension payable to the applicant, and obtained an undertaking from the applicant to the effect that till the aforesaid sum of Rs.20,663/- was recovered from his pension, the payment of the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- towards commuted value of pension would stand withheld. Thereafter, the respondent-EPFO, vide its letter dated 3.9.2012 (Annexure A/3), while confirming that a sum of Rs.20,338/- was deposited in EPS-1995 in respect of the applicant, requested the respondent-DTC to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.20,338/- to the applicant, and to adjust the said sum of Rs.20,338/- in the further EPS contributions payable to the EPFO in respect of other employees. Despite Page 3 of 8 OA 1685/15 4 RC Gupta v. DTC & ors this, the withheld amount of commuted value of pension, i.e., Rs.50,000/- has not been paid by the respondent-DTC to the applicant.
4. It is contended by the applicant that he was in no way responsible for the erroneous remittance of Rs.20,633/- by the respondent-DTC to the respondent-EPFO as contributions towards EPS-1995 in respect of him. When the respondent-EPFO required the respondent-DTC to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.20,633/- to the applicant, and to adjust the same in the EPS contributions payable by them to the respondent-EPFO in respect of other employees, the withheld commuted value of pension, i.e., Rs.50,000/- ought to have been released by the respondent-DTC in his favour without any delay. It is, thus, contended by the applicant that the respondent-DTC has acted illegally and arbitrarily in not releasing the withheld amount of commuted value of pension, i.e., Rs.50,000/-, along with interest, in his favour. It is also contended by the applicant that he was entitled to interest on the amount of retirement benefits paid to him in February 2011.
5. Per contra, it is contended by the respondent-DTC that the applicant did not point out that contributions in respect of him towards EPS-1995 were not payable to the Page 4 of 8 OA 1685/15 5 RC Gupta v. DTC & ors respondent-EPFO for the period from January 1995 to December 2000. On the basis of the undertaking given by the applicant, a sum of Rs.50,000/-was withheld from his commuted value of pension till the refund of Rs.20,663/-, together with the interest thereon, is received from the respondent-EPFO. As the respondent-EPFO has not yet refunded the said amount of Rs.20,663/- with interest, the withheld amount of commuted value of pension has not been released in favour of the applicant. It is also contended by the respondent-DTC that the submission of challans of contributions towards EPS-1995 has been computerized and, hence, the adjustment of Rs.20,633/-, as sought by the respondent-EPFO, could not be made by them.
6. After having given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the rival contentions of the parties, I do not find any substance in the contentions of the respondent-DTC. It was the responsibility of the respondent-DTC to verify the particulars of each and every employee working under them as to whether, or not, any of them had been covered by the DTC Pension Scheme, and whether, or not, monthly contribution towards EPS-1995 was to be remitted in respect of either of them to the respondent- EPFO. If any contribution towards EPS-1995 was erroneously Page 5 of 8 OA 1685/15 6 RC Gupta v. DTC & ors paid by the respondent-DTC in respect of any employee, like the applicant, for any period, it was the responsibility of the respondent-DTC to reconcile the accounts with the respondent-EPFO. Merely because an employee did not point out the fact of non-liability of the respondent-DTC for payment of contribution towards EPS-1995 in respect of him/her to the respondent-EPFO, it cannot be said that the concerned employee was responsible for erroneous remittance of contribution towards EPS-1995 in respect of him/her. In the instant case, when the respondent-EPFO requested the respondent-DTC to adjust a sum of Rs.20,338/-, which was erroneously contributed towards the EPS-1995 in respect of the applicant for the period from January 1995 to December 2000, the respondent-DTC cannot be said to have acted fairly in not acceding to the request of the respondent-EPFO, and in not releasing the withheld amount of commuted value of pension to the applicant. If at all the respondent-DTC found it impossible to adjust the said amount in the EPS Returns submitted by them to the respondent-EPFO in respect of other employees, then they could have requested the respondent- EPFO to refund the same by way of cheque, or otherwise. The respondent-DTC cannot be said to be justified in making a claim for payment of interest on the disputed amount of Page 6 of 8 OA 1685/15 7 RC Gupta v. DTC & ors Rs.20,663/- inasmuch as neither the applicant nor the respondent-EPFO can be held responsible for erroneous remittance of the said amount towards the EPS-1995 in respect of the applicant.
7. In the light of what has been discussed above, I direct the respondent-DTC to release the withheld amount of commuted value of pension, i.e., Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) to the applicant within a period of three months from today. The respondent-EPFO is directed to remit Rs.20,338/- (which was erroneously deposited by the respondent-DTC with them towards contribution to the EPS- 1995 in respect of the applicant for the period from January 1995 to December 2000) either in the shape of cheque, or otherwise, to the respondent-DTC within a period of three months from today. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not accede to the prayer made by the applicant for payment of interest on retirement benefits for the period from October 2010 to February 2011, or on the withheld amount of Rs.50,000/-, which is now directed to be released by the respondent-DTC in his favour. The respondent-EPFO shall also not pay any interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,338/-, which is now directed to be remitted by them to the respondent-DTC.
Page 7 of 8
OA 1685/15 8 RC Gupta v. DTC & ors
8. Resultantly, the O.A. is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER AN Page 8 of 8