Dhanwant Rai Mittal vs Muncipal Corporation Of Delhi (North)

The applicant in the OA worked as Malaria Inspector in the Anti Malaria Office, Public Health Department, MCD from 1961 to 1981. The applicant states that he submitted his resignation letter under VRS Scheme and left the service w.e.f. 31.08.1981. It is averred that the respondents wrongly took the plea that he remained absent from Duty after getting relieved from the west zone on 09.07.1980 and that is the reason no disciplinary action has been taken against the applicant for his alleged absence from duty till April, 2000, which is due date of retirement of the applicant.

The applicant states that he has not been given any retirement benefits after his superannuation though he made various representations to this effect. The respondents informed him that his personal file is not traceable and an FIR/NCR No.288/2009 has been lodged on the complaint of the custodian clerk. The applicant filed an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner in the year 2003 but was informed in the year 2009 that the present matter is not within the purview of the Assistant Labour Commissioner.

In March, 2012, the applicant again filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before the Distt. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi, for grant of gratuity and GPF. In pursuance of the same only GPF has been granted to him by the respondents. On information sought under RTI Act, 2005 on 13.03.2013 he was informed vide respondents' reply dated 05.04.2013 that his case file is not traceable and the necessary information will be provided as soon as the file is traced. In support of his claim, the applicant has relied upon a judgment dated 17.10.2012 passed by this Tribunal in the case of Rajinder Pal Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. (OA No.185/2010).

Per contra the respondents state that the contention of the applicant that he submitted his resignation in the Anti Malaria Office, G-74, Connaught Place, New Delhi under VRS Scheme and left service w.e.f.31.08.1981 is incorrect. His resignation was never received in the office of the respondents and the applicant has been absent from his duty after getting relieved from West Zone on 09.07.1980.

The respondents further aver that the applicant was proceeded for major penalty, and a penalty of stoppage of two increments was proposed to be inflicted upon him. A show cause notice dated 18.07.1980 was issued to him by the Vigilance Department which is produced by the respondents as Annexure 'B'. They, therefore, contend that since the applicant was facing the aforesaid RDA case as such the question of accepting the VRS of the applicant does not arise. As per the VRS Rules the applicant was also required to submit three months' notice to the Appointing Authority in the case of regular employee and one months' notice in the case of temporary employees but in the present case the applicant did not submit any such notice. For releasing the pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc., minimum 20 years qualifying service is required. In the present case, the applicant joined duty on 01.05.1961 and remained in service only upto 09.07.1980 during which period he also remained under suspension. Thus the applicant worked in the Corporation for less than 19 years, and is not entitled for payment of any terminal benefits except GPF which has already been paid to him.

The applicant on 18.03.2009, was requested to provide the copy of resignation letter dated 19.07.1981, alongwith acceptance of said resignation letter by the Anti Malaria Office, particulars of his last place of posting and proof of whether he was abroad or involved in any criminal case during the absence period i.e. from 09.07.1980 onwards. The applicant has failed to produce any such document on the plea that he had already handed over these documents to AO (Malaria) vide his letter dated 28.03.2009.

During the course of arguments both the counsel reiterated the issues already raised in the OA, the counter reply and the rejoinder.

I have gone through the facts of the case carefully as well as perused the record. The basic document, on which the entire case rests is the VRS letter which the applicant, purportedly submitted to the respondents. The same is not on record. The applicant submits that he does not have a copy of the same and the original had been submitted to the respondents.

As per the VRS Scheme one of the essential ingredients before VRS can be exercised is that the employee concerned should have completed 20 years in service of the concerned department. The applicant, who remained in service only upto 09.07.1980, does not qualify for this.

It is also reported by the respondents that the applicant was placed under suspension vide office order dated 24.02.1978 and was facing major penalty proceeding at the time when he allegedly gave his notice for voluntary retirement. They have averred that even if assuming, but not accepting, the request was given by the applicant, the same would not have been acceded to by the respondents since the applicant, at that point of time, was under currency of punishment of stoppage of two increments.

In view of these facts, the claim of the applicant that he submitted a VRS application, and left the service on 31.08.1981 is not tenable since it is not supported by any such documentary evidence. Rather the order dated 18.07.1980 goes to prove that at that point of time the applicant was undergoing punishment of stoppage of two increments.

Finding no merit in the case, I dismiss the OA. The judgments relied upon by the applicant do not come to his rescue since his case is distinguishable on facts. No costs.