Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hans Raj Bashal vs Union Of India Through on 13 January, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No.3930/2013 Order Reserved on : 06.01.2015 Order Pronounced on :13.01.2015 Honble Mr. G George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) Hans Raj Bashal, 77-1/2 Years, S/o Late Shri K.R. Bashal, Ex-Director, Deptt. Of Telecom, R/o A-57, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi-110017. Applicant. (By Advocate: Shri K.K. Sharma) Versus 1. Union of India through The Secretary, Deptt. Of Telecom, Ministry of Communication & IT, Sanchar Bhavan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001. 3. Asstt. Director General (Pensions) Deptt. Of Telecom, Sanchar Bhavan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110 001. Respondents (By Advocate : Shri R.N. Singh ) ORDER
G. George Paracken, Member(J) The Applicant has filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:-
(1) Direct the respondent to grant two advance increments to the applicant in the Senior Time Scale of ITS Group A w.e.f. 01.05.1990 as per orders of Department of Telecommunication vide No.15-1/89-PAT dated 11.07.1990, with all consequential service benefits;
(2) Direct respondents to upgrade his pension w.e.f. 01.04.1994, based on computation of enhanced basic pay inclusive of two increments, including the enhanced retiral dues, namely, gratuity, leave encashment, etc. (3) Direct respondents to pay arrears accruable to the applicant consequent on the grant of two increments w.e.f. 01.05.1990, along with interest @ 12% per annum on account of delayed payment attributable on the part of respondents as per the settled law enunciated by the Apex Court;
(4) Direct Respondent No.2 to revise applicants pension as per the V and VI C.P.C. recommendations as per rules and instructions issued from time to time.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant entered service under the Respondents as a Junior Engineer (Group C) with effect from 06.02.1957. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Building Planning) from April, 1965. While he was in service, he passed the Graduate ITE Examination held in January, 1966.
3. The Respondent-Department has considered the case of the Telecom Officials/Officers for grant of two advance increments to all those Telecom Officials/Officers who acquired degree in Engineering or equivalent qualification while in service and, vide their letter No.15-1/89-PAT dated 11.07.1990, they decided to grant two advance increments to the eligible Officers with effect from 01.05.1990, in the scale of the pay of the post they were holding on that date. In the aforesaid letter it was also stated that such Officers who acquired the prescribed qualification on or after 01.05.1990, may be grated the advance increments from the Ist of the month from the date the results were declared. A copy of the aforesaid letter is reproduced as under:-
GOVT. IF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS NEW DELHI-1.
No.15-1/89-PAT Dated 11.7.90. All Heads of Telecom Circles/ All Heads of Telephone Districts/ Other Administrative Offices/ M.T.N.L. Bombay/New Delhi/ V.S.N.L. Bombay/New Delhi.
Ssb: Grant of Advance Increments for acquiring higher qualification in Engineering.
Sir, The question of grant of advance increments to the Telecom officials/officers for acquiring a degree in Engineering or equivalent qualification while in service was under consideration of the Department. It has now been decided that
(i) Two advance increments in the respective grade may be granted to those Junior Engineers, Junior Telecom Officers, Officers of TES Group B and Officers of ITS in the Junior Time Scale and Senior Time Scale promoted from TES Group B, who acquire or have acquired a degree in Engineering in any one of the disciplines of Mechanical, Electrical, Telecommunication, Electronics, Radio Engineering and Computer Science from a recognised University or its equivalent qualification while in service.
(ii) Advance increments under these orders will be effective from 1.5.90 i.e. advance increments may be granted to eligible officers with effect from 1.5.90, in the scale of pay of the post which they hold on 1.5.90.
(iii) The (eligible) Officers who acquire the prescribed qualification on or after 1.5.90, may be granted advance increments from the 1st of the month following the month in which results are declared.
(iv) Advance increments under these orders will not be admissible to those officers who have already received advance increments under the earlier order (s).
2. This issues with the concurrence of Telecom Finance vide their UO No.2073/90-FAI dated 11.7.90.
Yours faithfully, ( R.C. SANDHIR ) DIRECTOR (ST-II) Copy to: As per standard list.
4. The Applicant was due for retirement from service on superannuation with effect from 31.03.1994. A week before the said date, i.e., 23.03.1994 he made a representation to grant him the benefit of the aforesaid letter dated 11.07.1990. However, a day before his retirement, i.e., on 30.03.1994, he was placed under suspension and a charge sheet was issued to him on 30.11.1994 which was later on dropped after conveying the displeasure of the President. Meanwhile, he was granted provisional pension as required under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 with effect from 01.04.1994. Later on, an FIR No.226/7 of 1997 was filed against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act but the same was challenged before the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Revision Petition No.55-62 of 2000 and the High Court set aside the same on 11.10.2001 and he was discharged from the said case. However, as the Respondents stopped paying him the provisional pension from 01.01.2003, he filed OA No.2438/2003 before this Tribunal to grant him regular pension and other pensionary benefits. The said OA was allowed vide order dated 01.11.2004 directing the Respondents to pay him the pension including revised pension with effect from 01.01.1996 and payment of arrears as accrued to him.
5. He has now filed the present OA stating that he was not granted the two advance increments in the Senior Time Scale of ITS Group A w.e.f. 01.05.1990 in terms of the aforesaid letter of the Respondents dated 11.07.1990 and the consequential benefits including enhanced pension, enhanced gratuity, leave encashment etc.
6. The Respondents in their reply have opposed the claim of the Applicant. First of all, they have taken the preliminary objection that the OA is barred by limitation. In this regard, they have stated that the cause of action in this case has arisen with the issuance of the letter dated 11.07.1990 while the Applicant was very much in service. He did not claim any benefits arising out of the said letter till 23.03.1994, the date on which he made representation to the Respondents to grant him the benefit of the aforesaid letter. Thereafter, he retired from service on 31.03.1994 and later he filed OA No.2438/2003 (supra) for grant of regular pension and pensionary benefits. In the said OA also he has not claimed any pension based on his salary after granting the two advance increments. However, he woke up to pursue his earlier representation dated 23.03.1994 only in the year 2009 and again took another 4 years to file this OA on 01.11.2013. The learned counsel for the Respondents Shri R.N. Singh has also stated that the Applicant has not even filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the present OA. He has, therefore, argued that this OA is liable to be dismissed on this preliminary ground itself. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment of 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 11.3.2011 held 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).
In the present case, the Tribunal entertained and decided the application without even adverting to the issue of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain this omission by pointing out that in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, no such objection was raised but we have not felt impressed. In our view, the Tribunal cannot abdicates its duty to act in accordance with the statute under which it is established and the fact that an objection of limitation is not raised by the respondent/non-applicant is not at all relevant .
7. On merits also, the learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the Applicant has no statutory, legal or enforceable right. He has specifically pointed out to clause (iii) of the letter dated 11.07.1990, wherein it has stated that the (eligible) Officers who acquire the prescribed qualification on or after 1.5.90, may be granted advance increments from the 1st of the month following the month in which results are declared. He has, therefore, stated that since the Applicant has acquired the higher qualification admittedly in the year 1966, he was not eligible for the benefit of the aforesaid letter dated 11.07.1990.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant Shri K.K. Sharma and the learned counsel for the Respondents Shri R.N. Singh. We fully agree with the learned counsel for the Respondents that this case is badly hit by principles of delay and laches. If the Applicant was convinced that he was eligible for the benefit of grant of two advance increments in terms of the letter dated 11.07.1990 and the same was denied to him, he could have approached the Respondents immediately thereafter and if the Respondent-Department has not considered his case favourably, he could have approached this Tribunal within the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which has been extracted above in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D.C.S. Negi (supra). On the other hand, he had filed OA No.2438/2003 (supra) for grant of regular pension and pensionary benefits and the same was allowed vide order dated 01.11.2004. In the said OA, the Applicant has never made any claim for pension to be fixed after granting two advance increments in terms of the letter dated 11.07.1990. Even though the Applicant had made a representation on 23.03.1994 for grant of two advance increments in terms of the aforesaid letter, he has not taken any further steps to get the same redressed either from the Department or from Tribunal till this OA after a period of 19 years. He has also not filed any application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present OA.
9. We also fully agree with the learned counsel for the Respondents that the Applicant has no case even on merits. It has been expressly made clear in the aforesaid letter dated 11.07.1990 that only those Officials/Officers who acquired the prescribed qualification on or after 01.05.1990 were eligible for grant of two advance increments. Admittedly, the Applicant has acquired qualification prior to the said date.
10. We, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, dismiss this case both on the grounds of limitation as well as merit.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G. GEORGE PARACKEN) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Rakesh