AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]
The Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal for protection of his fundamental, legal and statutory rights.
It is submitted that the applicant was working in the Roads and Buildings Department and rendered unblemished service before retiring from service on superannuation on 31.03.2026 as Work Supervisor. Copy of the retirement notification has been placed on record as Annexure-I.
It is further submitted that the applicant was extended certain service benefits by the competent authority in terms of SRO-59 of 1990 and that such service benefits were not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the applicant. Copy of the last pay drawn has been placed on record as Annexure-II.
It is submitted that the pension case of the applicant was processed by respondent No. 3 and submitted to respondent No. 4, i.e. the Accountant General’s office, for settlement. Respondent No. 4 thereafter sought certain information from respondent No. 3. In response thereto, respondent No. 3 informed respondent No. 4 that the office could not carry out any re-fixation and resubmitted the Service Book of the applicant for necessary action. The relevant documents/correspondence have been placed on record as Annexure-III and Annexure-IV. It is, however, submitted that till date the pension of the
It is further submitted that despite repeated requests made by the applicant, the respondents have also withheld the gratuity and other consequential retiral benefits payable to him. The applicant is aggrieved of the action of the respondents in withholding his pensionary benefits despite his pension case having already been processed by respondent No. 3 and submitted to respondent No. 4 for settlement.
It is submitted that the applicant, being a retired employee and having not received his pension till date, has been subjected to unnecessary hardship and is facing difficulty in meeting the expenses of nourishment and other day-to-day requirements of his family. It is further submitted that the applicant has approached the respondents at different levels and submitted representations seeking release of his pension, gratuity and other consequential retiral benefits, but the same have not yielded any result, which has compelled him to approach this Tribunal. respondents, inter alia, on the ground that withholding of retiral benefits such as pension and gratuity is illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary, as pension and gratuity are hard-earned benefits accrued to an employee on account of the service rendered by him and do not constitute a bounty.
It is further submitted that the respondents have no justification in law to withhold the benefits payable to the applicant even if the reason for such action is alleged erroneous fixation of pay. According to the applicant, after grant of the benefit under SRO-59, his pay was fixed on a number of occasions by the respondents themselves and such fixation was undertaken at the instance of the Department and not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the applicant. It is, therefore, contended that the respondents cannot, after retirement, re-fix the pay of the applicant and consequently reduce his pension and other retiral benefits. applicant relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question of recovery of benefits granted without fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, (2022), as well as Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 165 of 2013, decided on 08.08.2024.
Learned counsel for the applicant further relies upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, submitting that pension is not a bounty or an ex gratia payment dependent upon the discretion of the employer, but is a valuable right governed by the applicable rules. It is submitted that pension constitutes deferred compensation for the service rendered by a security after retirement.
The applicant has accordingly sought a direction to the respondents to finalise his pension case and release his pensionary benefits strictly on the basis of his last pay drawn, as reflected in Annexure-II. He has further sought a direction to the respondents to release his retiral benefits, including gratuity and other consequential benefits. By way of interim relief, the applicant has sought a direction to the respondents to finalise his pension case on the basis of his last pay drawn and release the withheld gratuity accordingly.
However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the interests of justice would be adequately served if the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the same as a representation and consider the claims raised therein, including the applicant’s claim for finalisation and release of his reflected in Annexure-II and release of his retiral benefits, including gratuity and other consequential benefits, together with the documents annexed thereto, strictly in accordance with law and within a stipulated period.
Mr. Syed Musaib, learned Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General’s office, appearing on advance notice, submit that the present Original Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.
Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Application pending, particularly in view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the applicant.
Accordingly, in view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the applicant, this Tribunal, without expressing any parties, deems it appropriate to dispose of the present Original Application with a direction to the respondents to treat the present Original Application as a representation and accord due consideration to the claims raised therein, including the applicant’s claim for finalisation and release of his pensionary benefits on the basis of his last pay drawn as reflected in Annexure-II, as well as release of his retiral benefits, including gratuity and other consequential benefits, keeping in view that the applicant’s pension case has already been processed by respondent No. 3 and submitted to respondent No. 4 for settlement, together with the documents annexed thereto and the judgments relied upon by the applicant, including D.S. Nakara (supra) and Thomas Daniel (supra), to the extent applicable and found to be relevant to the facts and circumstances of the applicant’s case, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations and the law governing the field.
Central Administrative Tribunal16.The respondents shall pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within a period of six (06) weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon them.
It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claim, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the competent authority while passing the aforesaid order.
With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Registry shall consign the record to the Record Room after due compliance.