Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Subramanium vs Chandigarh Administration on 6 April, 2023
1- O.A. No. 1066/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No. 1066/2019
Pronounced on: 06th April 2023
(Reserved On: 28.02.2023)
CORAM: HON'BLE SH. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
1. Subramanium S/o Late Sh. Manja Muttu, aged 50 years, House No. #
943, Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran, Chandigarh-160102.
2. Silvi D/o Sh. Manja Muttu aged about 42 years, House No. # 933,
Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran, Chandigarh-160102.
3. Laxmi aged about 38 years w/o late Sh. Nagraj, House No. # 917,
Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran, Chandigarh-160102.
....Applicants
By Advocate: Sh. Jagdeep Jaswal
Versus
1. The Home Secretary, Chandigarh Admn. 4th Floor, Union Territory
Secretariat Building, Sector-9-D, Chandigarh-160009.
2. The Chief Engineer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1st Floor, Secretariat
Building, Sector-9-D, Chandigarh-160009.
3. The Executive Engineer, Horticulture Division No. 2, Sector 23,
Chandigarh-160023.
4. Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Deluxe Building
Horticulture Division, Chandigarh-160017.
5. Accountant General (A&E), U.T. Sector 17, Chandigarh-160017.
... .Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Aseem Rai for R-1 to 4
Mr. Barjesh Mittal for R-5 )
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
2- O.A. No. 1066/2019
1. By means of the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(i) That impugned order dated 09.10.2018, Annexure A-1, be quashed and set aside being wholly illegal and arbitrary.
(ii) That any Rules/Provisions under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923, contrary to the claim of retiral benefits, admissible under the Statutory Pension Rules, of the applicants, may also be held to be illegal and arbitrary.
(iii) That respondents be directed to grant the applicants benefit of order dated 08.04.2011 (A-2) passed by this Hon‟ble Tribunal in one similar matter i.e. OA No. 964/CH/2010, titled as Anguma Vs. Union of India and others, which has been passed in similar circumstances and disburse them pensionary/retiral benefits, which were due to be paid for the service rendered by Sh. Manja Muttu in the respondent department.
(iv) That respondents be further directed to grant the applicants interest @ 15% p.a. on the amount calculated as per relief no(ii).
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the father of applicant No. 1 and 2, and Father-in-law of applicant no. 3, Sh. Manja Muttu (deceased employee) joined the respondent department as Mali w.e.f. 16.01.1985 under Chandigarh Administration and he was regularized as such in service w.e.f. 03.05.1994. He was transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh in 1996. He died on 17.01.2012 while performing service, after rendering almost 27 years of service. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, vide letter dated On 19.08.2013 (Annexure A-5) sanctioned compensation under Workman Compensation Act, 1923 to applicant No.1 as his father expired, while performing Government Duties and accordingly the pensionary benefits were not paid to the legal heirs only on the ground that they received 3- O.A. No. 1066/2019 compensation under Workmen‟s Compensation Act, 1923. The payment has been actually paid on 31.03.2015. Since the applicants were not granted the pensionary benefits, they served upon the respondents legal notice dated 30.09.2015, relying upon decision dated 08.04.2011 (A-2) passed by this Tribunal in one similar matter i.e. OA No. 964/CH/2010, tilled as Anguma Vs. Union of India and others. The respondent No. 4 replied to the legal notice vide a communication dated 19.10.2015 (Annexure A-6A) stating therein that the retiral benefits (if due) are to be released/paid by the office of the Executive Engineer, Hort. Divn. No2, Sector 23 UT Chandigarh (Respondent No. 3 herein) as the leave salary and pension contribution in respect of late Sh. Manju Muttu, Mali has since been deposited by this office with the Ex. Engineer, UT Chandigarh. Finding no response from the Respondent No. 3, the applicants filed, OA No. 060/1082/2017, which was withdrawn by the applicants to remove technical defects with liberty to file fresh O.A vide order dated 24.05.2017 (A-13). The applicants filed OA No. 060/00182/2016 seeking the relief for grant of admissible pension and pensionary benefits in accordance with law and rules, which was disposed off on 03.07.2018, with a direction to the Competent Authority to take a final decision on the claim of the applicant as expeditiously as possible. The respondent No. 2 issued letter dated 09.10.2018(Annexure A-1) stating that since the compensation has been granted under workmen‟s compensation Act-1923 by the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, therefore, the applicant‟s request for grant of pensionary benefits is rejected, which has been assailed by the applicants in the present Original Application.
4- O.A. No. 1066/2019
3. The respondents no. 1 to 3 have filed the written statement stating that the complete pension case was sent to the office of Respondent No. 5, who had returned a clear opinion that DCRG is not admissible, when compensation has been granted under the Workmen‟s Compensation Act. It has further been submitted that the applicants have not referred to any statutory or legal provision, which would allow them to claim dual benefits under the Workmen‟s Compensation Act as well as the Civil Services Rules. Unlike the case of Smt. Anguma, in which the reitral benefits were claimed by the widow of the deceased employee, in the present case, the applicants were more than 25 years old at the time of death of their father Sh. Manjamuttu, therefore they are not entitled to pension.
4. The Respondent No. 5 has also filed short written statement contesting the claim of the applicants. It has been submitted that the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh vide office order dated 04.06.2013 (Annexure R-5/1) sanctioned to grant compensation under Chapter-II, Schedule-IV of Workman Compensation Act, 1923, amounting to Rs.2,78,260/- to applicant no. 1 i.e. son of Late Sh. Manju Mattu subject to the condition that the son of the deceased will opt either for the payment under Workmen‟s Compensation Act or under Civil Services Rules. Consequently, the 5- O.A. No. 1066/2019 applicants exercised option preferring the benefits admissible under the Workmen‟s Compensation Act, 1923 and preferred to forgo their claim for the payment of gratuity under the Pension Rules and accordingly, the said amount was disbursed to the applicants vide cheque No. 835057 dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure A-5). Subsequently, the applicants took a U-turn and instead of being bound by their option regarding forgoing their claim under the Civil Service Rules/Pension Rules, they raised their claim before this Tribunal. In this context, the reference has been made to office order dated 04.06.2013 (Annexure R-5/1)whereby the compensation was sanctioned to the applicants.
5. The controversy for adjudication in the instant O.A. is as to whether the applicants being family members of late Sh. Manja Muttu (deceased employee) are not legally entitled to receive the payment of DCRG under Central Civil Service (Pesnion) Rules on the pretext that they have received compensation of Rs.2,78,260/- under Workmen‟s Compensation Act, 1923 and undertook that they will opt for the compensation under Workman Compensation Act, 1923 and forego the amount of DCRG.
6. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the pleadings and records.
6- O.A. No. 1066/2019
7. Admittedly, the father of the applicants no. 1 and 2 and father- in-law of applicant no. 3 late Sh. Manja Muttu died in harness on 17.01.2012 after rendering 27 years of service with the Respondent No. 4. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh sanctioned compensation of Rs. 2,78,260/- to applicant no. 1 under Workmen‟s Compensation Act, 1923 subject to the condition that the applicant no. 1 will opt either for payment under Workmen‟s Compensation Act or Civil Services Rules. Consequently, the applicant no. 1 exercised the option preferring the benefits admissible under Workmen‟s Compensation Act, 1923 and forego their claim for payment of gratuity under the Pension Rules. The said amount of compensation was paid to the applicants vide cheque no. 835057 dated 16.08.2013. However, the respondent no. 3 forwarded the pension case of the deceased Sh. Manja Muttu to the office of Respondent No. 5 for grant of DCRG vide memo dated 16.01.2014, but the same was returned by Respondent No. 5 with the observation that in terms of undertaking given by applicant no. 1, the amount of DCRG is not admissible, when the compensation has already been granted under the Workmen‟s Compensation Act. The respondent no. 5 has taken a stand that the applicants took „U‟ turn and instead of being bound by their option regarding foregoing their claim under Civil 7- O.A. No. 1066/2019 Services (Pension) Rules, approached this Tribunal seeking the benefit of DCRG. Since the applicants have been granted the compensation under Workmen‟s Compensation Act, 1923, they are not entitled to the benefit under Pension Rules.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that contention of the respondents that under the Workman Compensation Act, having opted for compensation under the Act, the applicants are not required to be paid benefits of retiral dues, is wholly illegal and arbitrary. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance upon a decision dated 08.04.2011 (Annexure A-2) of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Anguma (supra) wherein this Tribunal has allowed the similar claim of the applicants therein while relying upon a judgment of Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Chander Singh Chhikara Vs. State of Haryana 1996 (2) SCT 709. He argues that the present case is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Anguma (supra). He urged that the benefits arising from a judicial pronouncement ought to be extended to all the similarly placed persons. In this context reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Satyapal Singh and Others Vs. The State of Haryana and another, 1999(2) 8- O.A. No. 1066/2019 RSJ 377 and a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of K.C. Sharma & Ors Vs. Union of India & Others 1997 (3) SCT 641.
9. At this juncture, it is to be seen the object of compensation granted under the Workmen‟s Compensation Act, 1923 and the benefit of DCRG available under Civil Services (Pension) Rules. From the preamble of the Workmen‟s Compensation Act, 1923, it is crystal clear that the said Act was passed with the aim to provide compensation by certain classes of employers to their workmen for injury by accident. The benefit of the Workmen‟s Compensation Act is not available to every government servant, whereas the Rule 45 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, provides the payment of Retirement Gratuity and Death Gratuity to government servant subject to certain conditions . The Rule 45 reads as under:
"45. Retirement Gratuity and Death Gratuity (1) (a) A Government servant, who has completed five years‟ qualifying service and has become eligible for service gratuity or pension under Rule 44 shall, on his retirement, be granted retirement gratuity equal to one-fourth of his emoluments for each completed six monthly period of qualifying service, subject to a maximum of 16 ½ times the emoluments.
(b) If a Government servant dies while in service, the death gratuity shall be paid to his family in the manner indicated in sub rule(1) of Rule 47 at the rates given in the table below:
Sr. Length of qualifying Rate of death
No. service gratuity
(i) Less than 1 year 2 times of
emoluments
9- O.A. No. 1066/2019
(ii) One year or more but 6 times of
less than 5 years emoluments
(iii) 5 years or more but less 12 times of
than 11 years emoluments
(iv) 11 years or more but 20 times of
less than 20 years emoluments
(v) 20 years or more Half of
emoluments
for every
completed six-
monthly
period of
qualifying
service subject
to a maximum
of 33 times of
emoluments.
Provided that the amount of retirement gratuity of death gratuity payable under this rule shall in no case exceed twenty lakh rupees."
The sub rule (1) (b) of the Rule 45 of CCS (Pension) Rules provides a right to the family of deceased government servant, who dies in service, to claim the DCRG. The said right available to the family members of the deceased government servant cast obligation on the employer to pay death gratuity in the manner prescribed under the rule. Therefore, the contention of the respondent no. 5 is not in consonance with the rule 45 of CCS (Pension) Rules as the nature of compensation under Workmen‟s Compensation Act, 1923 and payment of DCRG under CCS (Pension) Rules are totally different and governed by the separate Rules.
10- O.A. No. 1066/2019
10. This Tribunal in the case of Smt. Anguma (supra) while disposing of the O.A. has held as under:-
"6. I have considered the matter and have perused the ruling placed before me along with the other record. Since retiral benefits of the deceased are statutory liability of the Govt. and any undertaking given by the applicant to surrender this liability in lieu of the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be extinguished and the undertaking given by her to forego the retiral benefits does not amount to estoppels from claiming the retiral benefits due to the applicant's husband. Accordingly, the OA is allowed and the applicant is held entitled to receive all pensionary benefits due to her late husband, which may be paid to her within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. However, since the applicant had given an undertaking before the authorities for not claiming the retiral benefits, therefore, delay cannot be attributed to the respondents in releasing the retiral benefits. Therefore, claim for interest is declined."
The respondent no. 5 has taken a plea that this Tribunal in its order dated 08.04.2011 in Anguma‟s case (supra) has not recorded any finding as to how and under which provisions of law, the deceased government employee is entitled to double benefits under Pension Rules as well as Workman Compensation Act, 1923, therefore, the said order can be treated as per incuriam and can‟t be held to be laying down a law to be treated as precedent. It is apt to mention here that the respondent no. 3 was the party to the aforesaid case and the order passed in Anguma‟s case (supra) was not challenged by the respondents. Meaning thereby the verdict has been accepted by the respondents and moreover the Respondents no. 1 to 3 have forwarded 11- O.A. No. 1066/2019 the pension case of applicant to the Respondent No. 5 for processing. Therefore, the plea of the respondent no. 5 that the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 08.04.2011 was passed without recording of any finding is neither justified nor acceptable at this stage.
11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents could not show any provision, which prohibits the payment of DCRG in the event of compensation paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employee under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923. This Tribunal in earlier O.A. No. 060/00182/2016, vide order dated 03.07.2018 directed the respondents to take a final decision on the claim of the applicants within a period of three months. Pursuant to direction given by this Tribunal, the Respondent No. 3 has rejected the claim of the applicants for DCRG vide order dated 09.10.2018 on the ground that the compensation has been paid to the applicant under Workman Compensation Act, 1923. The said contention of rejection of claim for DCRG is not acceptable being a denial of statutory benefits available to the legal heirs of the deceased under Rules. At the time of consideration of representation of the applicant in terms of direction given by this Tribunal, the respondents could have released the amount of DCRG admissible under the Rules after adjusting the amount of compensation of Rs.2,78,260/- paid under the 12- O.A. No. 1066/2019 Workmen‟s Compensation Act. The objection raised by Respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 13.02.2014 is unjustified and without any legal basis, therefore, the same is liable to be rejected.
12. With the above observations, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.10.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the amount of DCRG to the applicants as per the Rules, after adjusting the amount of Rs. 2,78,260/- already paid as compensation under the Workmen‟s Compensation Act, 1923, along with the interest @ 6% p.a. from 16.08.2013 (the date when the compensation amount was given to the applicant) till the date of payment. The above exercise be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (J) „mw‟