Makhan Lal vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri S D Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:

The compendium of the facts narrated in the instant original application is that the applicant is aggrieved by non-consideration of his claim of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 8,90,703/- and pension to the tune of Rs. 43,403/- per month by the respondents despite the fact that he has preferred multiple representations before the authority concerned including the detailed representation dated 06.03.2023 upon which no decision has been taken at the end of the department. By way of the instant original application, the applicant has contended that his case is covered by several judgments and has alleged that without any fault of his, he has been made to suffer by the department. Prayer is made by him to allow this OA thereby directing the respondents to make the aforesaid payment otherwise he will suffer irreparable loss and damage.

Counter has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that during his service period, on medical ground, the applicant sought voluntary retirement and accordingly he was given voluntary retirement from service on 17.06.1999. After retirement, service of the applicant was counted for qualifying service from the date of appointment i.e., 04.03.1973 for the purpose of settlement dues. There is no record of casual labour in respect of the applicant available with the department nor has he produced any evidence in this regard.

I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was engaged as Casual Labour on 03.07.1969 and continued till 04.03.1979, when during the assessment, he was found medically fit and was accordingly provided regular appointment as Engine Cleaner at Tundla Junction. On 01.03.1990, he was further granted promotion to the post of Electrical Turnner (ET) and thus, learned counsel argued that the applicant was delivering continuous service till 1998 and vide letter dated 25.04.1998, the applicant was medically decategorized. It was further argued that as per rule, the applicant should have been given alternate appointment after his medical decategorisation but instead, he was discharged from service. Subsequently, he was given lesser pension by the department. Learned counsel argued that in view of the extant rules and criteria set for calculating pensionary services which has been laid down by several courts across the country again and again, the service of the applicant for pensionary benefits is 31 years and 07 months but the respondents have wrongly calculated the service as 29 years and 07 months.

Learned counsel further argued that stating the aforesaid facts and seeking redressal of his grievance, the applicant preferred several representations before the respondents’ department including a detailed representation dated 06.03.2023 (annexed as Annexure A-3 to Compilation No II of this OA) but no action has been taken by the respondents on the said representation. To substantiate his case, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 21.04.2015 passed by the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No 1402 of 2015 titled Shri Bhagwati and others Vs Union of India and others And Connected Cases. Reliance has also been made on the judgment dated 15.02.2016 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal Defective No 92 of 2016 titled Ravindra Nath Shukla Vs State of UP and two others. Thus, referring to entire facts and circumstances of the case, prayer was made to allow the OA thereby directing the respondents to decide the detailed representation dated 06.03.2023 by way of a reasoned and speaking order. Direction has also been sought to the respondents to provide Gratuity to the tune of Rs. 8,90,703/-and Pension to the tune of Rs 43,403/- per month, to the applicant.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions of the applicant’s counsel and by way of his counter affidavit submitted that the applicant was initially appointed as Cleaner in Grade 196-232 on 04.03.1973 in the office of the respondents. Subsequently, he was promoted FMC in Grade 210-250, FMB in Grade 260-350 and FMA in Grade 290-350 on 08.05.1975, 13.01.1981 and 13.09.1983 respectively. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted as EADR in Grade 290-350 on 20.08.1985 and as ET in Grade 1200-2040 on 25.03.1990. On medical ground, the applicant sought voluntary retirement and accordingly he was given voluntary retirement from the service on 17.06.1999. After retirement, for the purpose of settlement dues, the service of the applicant was counter for qualifying service from the date of appointment i.e., 04.03.1973. Furthermore, there are no records of casual labour in respect of the applicant available with the department and nor the applicant has produced any records or evidence in support of his contention. The total qualifying service of the applicant has been calculated as 29 years 07 moths and 24 days and all the retiral dues have been paid to him on that basis. Thus, prayer was made to dismiss the OA being devoid of merits.

I have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the documents on record.

The underlying controversy here is that the applicant has alleged wrong calculation of qualifying pensionary service on the part of the respondents. He has claimed that the total qualifying service is 31 years and 07 months but the respondents have wrongly calculated the service as 29 years and 07 months and due to this reason, he has been paid lesser gratuity amount and lesser pension. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Shri Bhagwati (supra) case passed by the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. The facts on record also reveal that seeking redressal of his grievance, the applicant has preferred a detailed representation dated 06.03.2023 (annexed as Annexure A-3 to Compilation No II of this OA) but no action has been taken by the respondents on the said representation. Thus, at this stage, it would be in the fitness of things if the respondents are directed to decide the representation of the applicant in a time bound manner.

Thus, the instant original application stands disposed of. The competent authority amongst the respondents is hereby directed to decide the representation dated 06.03.2023 (annexed as Annexure A-3 to Compilation No II of this OA) by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

If the representation is not available with the respondents, the respondents shall communicate regarding this fact to the applicant within ten days of this order and thereafter, the applicant will prefer a comprehensive and detailed representation stating all the facts and grounds as have been narrated in this judgment. All the case laws relied upon by the applicant through this OA be also annexed with that representation and the respondents shall decide the case of the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of the said representation in accordance with extant rules and case laws relied upon by the applicant therein.

Consequent to the decision, if the case of the applicant is found genuine, the necessary refixation of the pay (pension and other benefits) shall be done by the respondents and all consequential benefits shall be paid to the applicant forthwith. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within one month from the date of passing of any such order. The order passed in this regard be communicated to the applicant forthwith.

All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly.

No costs.