AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicant herein was engaged by the DTC as a daily rated employee on 10.01.1980. His services were subsequently regularized on monthly rated basis with effect from 01.11.1980. The applicant thereafter retired on 31.03.2013.
The applicant pleads that his qualifying service has been calculated with effect from 01.11.1980 instead of the same being calculated from 10.01.1980. On this basis, the calculations in respect of qualifying service will change and it will increase and accordingly gratuity is likely to be increased, to the advantage of applicant. However, the calculations for gratuity which were issued on 20.03.2013, indicate his date of appointment as 01.11.1980 only. This is one of the grievance.
The second grievance is that certain recoveries amounting to Rs. 1,45,293/- on account of leave without pay (LWP) which was shown as three years, 7 months and 25 days, were also indicated in these calculations of gratuity as of 20.03.2013.
Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has sent a representation to the respondents vide his letter dated 19.12.2014. The respondents have made a detailed reply on 21.01.2015 indicating 5 different periods when applicant was under suspension and during this period there are two punishments also that involve stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect in one case and stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect in another case.
The applicant also relies upon the judgment by the Hon'ble apex court in Rafiq Masih (white washer) case which was delivered sometimes in 2014 and pleads that recoveries cannot be made, he being in Group C & D and on the verge of retirement.
The respondents opposed the OA pleading that the calculations were done in March 2013 and advised to applicant. The applicant has since retired and all dues have been settled. Accordingly, this OA is barred by limitations. It was also pleaded that qualifying service is counted from regularization only and has been done correctly. It was also pleaded that Rafiq Masih is not applicable in cases of punishment. Whereas, the applicant has undergone certain punishment which were accounted for at the time of retirement.
The respondents also produced the service record in respect of the applicant which clearly indicates that the applicant was on a daily rated basis with effect from January 1980 and was on monthly rated basis with effect from November 1980. On the basis of above, the respondents plead that calculations are correct and OA needs to be dismissed.
Matter has been heard at length. Mr. Ravi Kumar with Mr. Johari Mal learned counsel appeared for the applicant and Mr. Jatin Parashar proxy counsel appeared for the respondents.
The service records are reviewed at the time of retirement. The punishments were in the knowledge of applicant and alongwith some other periods of LWP, qualifying service has reduced. The ratio of Rafiq Masih judgment is not attracted under such conditions.
The calculations in respect of gratuity based upon date of appointment as 01.11.1980 were made on 20.03.2013 and the same statement also indicates the period of leave without pay (LWP). Accordingly, the qualifying service was calculated as 29 years and gratuity payment was accordingly worked out. This statement also indicates the recoveries amounting to Rs. 1,45,293/-on account of LWP.
It is therefore clear that the applicant was very well aware as of March 2013 itself, at the time of his retirement, that his qualifying service has been calculated to be 29 years and certain recoveries have also been made. The OA was filed in June 2015.
In view of foregoing, the present application is taken to be time barred. Even on merits also as seen from the service records, the calculations in respect of qualifying service cannot be faulted. The reasoning for deductions is also duly explained. This also cannot be faulted.
In view of foregoing, nothing subsists in this OA. Same is dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs.