Madan Lal vs Union Of India And Ors

Heard Shri S.P.Sethi, counsel for the applicant and Shri V.S.R. Krishna counsel for the respondents, and perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the parties.

The relevant facts of this case are that the applicant has filed this application praying for grant of interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the alleged delayed payment of difference of DCRG amount after six years of his retirement. The case of the applicant is that he retired on 31.01.2005 in the post of Chief Inspector of Tickets (CTI) in the respondents' organization. All his terminal benefits including DCRG were paid in time. In 2003, he had filed one Original Application bearing No. 3173/2003 regarding his seniority and further promotion. In the said OA, vide order dated 11.08.2008 after his retirement, an order was passed by this Tribunal directing the respondents to refix his seniority and conduct necessary tests and promote him notionally from the date of promotion of his juniors. In compliance with the said order of the Tribunal, though the applicant had retired, yet the formalities were completed and he was ultimately promoted notionally as Assistant Commercial Manager (ACM) on 18.01.2011, and the difference of retiral benefit after refixation of his salary notionally on promotion, the retrial benefits were worked out and the difference in DCRG as a result of said promotion was worked out as Rs. 56,467/-and paid on 14.03.2011. The case of the applicant is that this DCRG amount of Rs.56,467/- is paid not on account of his notional promotion as ACM but because of his seniority having been refixed in the post of CTI. As such there is a delay of six years. But, however, the applicant has not produced any documents to demonstrate that this difference of DCRG amount of Rs.56,467/- was arrived at because of the seniority refixation. On the other hand, in the judgment of this Tribunal dated 16.08.2012 in another OA filed by him bearing number 4180/2011, at para 3 it is specifically recorded that this amount is arrived at as a consequence of such promotion. The said para 3 is extracted below:

"The applicant also filed an Miscellaneous Application for revival of Contempt Petition in which the respondents filed detailed reply, taking note of which, this Tribunal disposed of the same. As a consequence of promotion of the applicant to the post of ACM, he was paid the following revised settlement dues in terms of letters dated 18.01.2011 and 27.04.2011:-

"(a) Revised Pension Rs.8063/-Relief w.e.f.01.02.2005 (PPO No.0105080161.

(b) Revised Pension Rs.12149/- + Relief w.e.f. 01.01.2006 (PPO No.0105080161 dated 05.04.2011).

(C) DCRG difference Rds.56467/- passed vide CO7 No.586 dated 14.03.2011 vide cheque No. dated

(d) Difference of payment on leave encashment Rs.34,223/- passed vide AB No. 9902210314059 dated 08.03.2011 & CO7 No. 3604 dated 08.03.2011 vide cheque No.... dated.."

From the above facts, it is clear that the applicant was notionally promoted though after retirement on 18.01.2011 to the post of ACM and the difference was worked out and paid to him on 14.03.2011. As such, there is no delay in payment of difference of DCRG amount. As such there is no merit in the case. Accordingly, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.