AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER :: NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, MEMBER (J) :
Shri N.N. Singh, learned counsel for applicant is present. Shri T.N. Thakur, ld. Sr. CGSC, on receipt of advance copy of O.A. has appeared for opposite parties.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
Present application has been filed by the wife of the deceased employee with the following prayers :-
8 (a) Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this OA.
(b)May be pleased to declare memo No. B1-390/L dated 17-07-2023 (A/3) as non-est in eye of law and consequently issue order to quash and set aside.
(c ) May graciously be pleased to declare impugned order of Director ,Postal Services (North) Region, the Disciplinary Authority memo No Vig/RP-Puran Kr. Thakur /MTH/2003 dated 29-1111-2023 (Α/8).
(d)PMG (N) Muzaffarpur Appellate Authority Memo No. Vig/P(N)/AP-14/MTH/2024 dated 03-04-2024(A/9) as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair, vindictive, perverse and bad in law to quash and set aside the same (b) &(c) respectively
(e)Further may be pleased to direct the respondents to revise the family pension taking into account the last pay of Late Puran Kumar Thakur amounting Rs 68000/- + 3% of Rs 68000 (Notional increment) as the basic pay (Last pay) at the time of date of superannuation on 31-12-2023 as per Govt. of Indi's order.
(f)May further be pleased to direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant.
(g)Any other order/ orders as Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
(h)Cost of the case may please be awarded for unnecessary expenditure incurred in litigation causing mental agony, sorrow, sufferings and pain.
It has been submitted by the counsel for applicant that the husband of the applicant was the employee of the Postal Department. On 17.07.2023 a memorandum of charge was issued against him in connection with the Disciplinary Inquiry. The Inquiry was finalized on 29.11.2023 and by order of Inquiry Officer late Puran Kumar Thakur was awarded punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by two stages from Rs.68,000/- to Rs. 64,100/- in the time scale of pay matrix of level- 7 for the period from 01.12.2023 to 31.12.2023 with further direction that Mr. Puran Kumar Thakur will not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period the deduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay and adversely affecting his pension also.
Against the above punishment order, the employee approached to the Appellate Authority who vide order dated 03.04.2024 rejected the Appeal. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner has died on 13.05.2026.
In the present O.A. the applicant has assailed the Charge Memorandum dated 17.07.2023, order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.11.2023 and the order of Appellate Authority dated 03.04.2024 as well as PPO issued by the authority concerned after the retirement of husband of the applicant on 31.12.2023.
We have heard counsel for applicant.
Admittedly, the husband of the applicant has not challenged Central Administrative Tribunalthe order of the Appellate Authority in any proceeding of Revision. Husband of the applicant has died on 13.05.2026 i.e almost after two years from the date of order passed by the Appellate Authority. It has been submitted by the counsel for applicant that the PPO was issued on the basis of above wrongly reduced last pay of the deceased in 2024 but till his death, the husband of applicant has not challenged the above charge memorandum, punishment, order of Disciplinary Authority, Rejection order of Appellate Authority and the PPO which allegedly has been issued wrongly. After passing almost two years and after the death of her husband, the applicant has preferred to file the present O.A.
We have asked to the counsel for applicant regarding the locus standi of the applicant and whether in the light of the fact of the case why the inference not be drawn that the husband of the applicant accepted the above punishment and PPO and the OA is barred by the principle of acquiescence, Counsel for applicant could not reply. Therefore, at this primary stage the case of applicant appears without merit.
It also reveals from the record that in the paragraph 8 of the OA, the applicant has challenged the order dated 17.07.20233, 29.11.2023 and 03.04.2024 as well as the PPO which was issued by the Authority concerned after the superannuation of her husband. According to the provision of Section 21 (1) of the CAT Rules 1985, the limitation period has been prescribed only 06 + 12 = 18 months. The OA has been filed by the applicant on 03.09.2026, therefore, in our considered view, the OA is barred by the limitation as the applicant has not preferred to file any application for condonation of delay.
In view of the above, the OA is dismissed in limine at this Central Administrative Tribunalpreliminary stage. No costs.