Gopal Singh vs Union Of India Through The Secretary

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant was working as a Senior Section Engineer in the Western Central Railway. He was extended the benefit of certain increments in the year 1989 and his pay scale was also enhanced. He was due to retire on 30.09.2008.

In the course of verification of his service record in the context of fixation of pension, it was noticed that certain increments were wrongly extended to him. A show cause notice dated 16.07.2008 was issued requiring the applicant to explain as to why the resultant amount shall not be deducted. Particulars thereof were also furnished. However, the applicant did not submit his reply. On the other hand, he addressed a letter dated 14.08.2008 with a request to extend the time for submission of the reply. Having waited till 30.09.2008, the respondents prepared the PPO, fixing his pension and effecting the deduction of the amount alleged to have been wrongfully paid to him.

This OA is filed challenging the action of the respondents in deducting the amount from him and fixing the pension on the basis of a lower scale. He contends that the respondents acted in contravention of the settled principles of law and there was no basis either for effecting deduction or for fixing the pension at a lower rate.

The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. They raised a serious objection on the grounds of limitation. It is stated that for the steps that were taken in the year 2008 filing an OA in the year 2013, is totally untenable. It is also stated that though a notice was issued to the applicant, he has not chosen to submit a reply and left with no alternative, the relevant amount was deducted and the pension was fixed.

We heard Ms. Meenu Mainee, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Satpal Singh and Ms. Neetu Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

Whenever an employee reaches the age of superannuation, the Accounts Wing of the department undertakes verification of the service records in the context of fixation of pension. The promotions and increments that have been extended to the employee, are re-verified. If any increment was wrongfully extended, the employee is required to explain as to why suitable action be not taken. It is in this context, that the applicant was issued a notice dated 16. 07.2008 stating that an increment was extended to him in the year 1989 wrongly. The impact thereof up to the date of retirement was also mentioned and he was given ten days' time to submit reply.

The applicant states that he addressed a letter dated 14.08.2008 seeking time to submit reply. The respondents, however, have stated that such a letter has not been received by them at all. The Pension Payment Order was issued on 30.09.2008, the date on which the applicant retired. The deduction contemplated under the show cause notice dated 16. 07.2008, were effected and the pension was fixed by omitting the increments which are said to have been wrongfully extended to him.

It is no doubt true that there is enormous delay in filing the OA. The delay was condoned by this Tribunal on the condition that the applicant shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost. It is stated that the amount was not paid on account of certain technical issues. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is prepared to pay that amount to the Bar Association of the Principal Bench of the CAT. We grant two weeks' time for this.

In State of Punjab and Ors. v Rafiq Masih, (2014) 8 SCC 883, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the deductions of this nature shall not be effected from the employees of lower categories. The applicant was holding a group 'C' post. Even if we conclude that the applicant falls into the categories mentioned in the said judgment, it becomes clear that there was a clear default on his part in responding to a notice dated 16.07.2008. We are of the view that ends of justice would met if the respondents are required to refund 50% of the amount deducted from the applicant.

Coming to the question of fixation of pension, the blame one again goes to the applicant himself. Once the notice dated 16.07.2008 was issued, proposing to deny him the benefit of certain increments, he was supposed to realize that its impact would be felt on the PPO also. It is he who permitted the same to come into existence. However, since the grievance regarding payment of pension is a continuous cause, we permit the applicant to make a representation indicating the reasons as to why the increments that were denied to him, need to be restored and pension needs to be fixed afresh.

We, therefore, dispose of the OA

(a) directing that the respondents shall refund 50% of the amount deducted from the applicant in pursuance of the notice dated 16.07.2008 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and

(b) leaving it open to the applicant to make a representation for re-fixation of his pension, duly stating the reasons therefor. If such a representation is made, appropriate orders thereon shall be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the pension is revised upwards, the arrears upto this order need not be paid.

There shall be no order as to costs.