Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2018) 09 CAT CK 0024

Madhukar Rao vs Commissioner North Delhi Municipal Corporation And Ors

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 27 September 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 3521 Of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 532 words
1.

Briefly stated, the facts of the current O.A. are that the applicant was appointed as Typist on 01.01.1973 with the respondents. On 19.11.1978, he was promoted as Jr. Librarian-cum-Accountant. The applicant obtained certificate course in Library in 1976, Post Graduate Diploma in Library in 1978 and Degree in Library in 1998. He was further promoted and joined as Asstt. Librarian-cum-Accountant on 11.12.1982 and as a Librarian on 01.01.1998. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 30.09.2013.

2.

In the O.A., the applicant has stated that Hardayal Public Municipal Library has been 100% funded by erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi. After trifurcation in 2012, funding and control of the library has been fixed as per the territorial limit of three Corporations which have come into existence in 2012. Hardayal Public Municipal Library falls within the territorial jurisdiction of North DMC. At the time of retirement on 30.09.2013, the respondents wrongly deducted Rs.8754/- from Dearness Allowance and Rs. 1,13,903/- from the Contributed Provident Fund of the applicant. Secondly, at the time of retirement, applicant was in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 (GP Rs.6600) and the last pay drawn by the applicant was Rs.77915/-.

3.

The applicant was granted extension as Librarian and he joined on 03.10.2013 with a salary of Rs.55,108/-. His period was extended upto 02.07.2014. The applicant submits that his salary for the period from 03.10.2013 to 02.07.2014 amounting to Rs. 4,24,332/- has not been paid to him. In this regard, the applicant made a representation dated 03.07.2014, but the same has not been replied to by the respondents. In an information sought under RTI, the respondents have accepted that Rs.1,22,957/- has been wrongly deducted. Apart from payment of salary of Rs.4,24,332/-, the applicant was entitled for payment of Rs.1,90,546.83 against CPF. This includes principle amount of Rs.88,222/- and interest of Rs.94,492/- for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2012 and Rs.55,499/- for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. This totals upto Rs.2,38,213/-. The respondents have paid Rs. 47,666.17 to the applicant on 08.02.2016. Accordingly, the amount still due to the applicant is Rs.1,90,546.83. He has also been paid Rs.34,270/- on 02.12.2015 in respect of leave encashment, Rs.2787/- on 02.12.2015 in respect of arrears of dearness allowance and Rs.51405/- on 02.12.2015 in respect of gratuity.

4.

Aggrieved, this O.A. has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"(a) to issue direction to the respondent to make payment of the salary for the period 3.10.2013 to 2.7.2014, total Rs. 4,24,322/-.

(b) To issue direction to the respondent to make payment of Rs.1,90,557/- towards the balance of CPF.

(c) To issue direction to the respondent to pay interest @24% per annum to the applicant upon the aforesaid amount."

5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I find that the issue raised in the current O.A. is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in OA-3374/2017 (Smt. Sudha Tandon & Ors. Vs. MCD & Ors.) dated 27.08.2018 with connected OAs. For parity of reasons, I dismiss this O.A. for want of jurisdiction. However, this order shall not preclude the applicant from approaching a competent court of law, if he is so advised, in accordance with law. No costs.