AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following reliefs:
“8(A) Direct the respondents to recalculate all admissible dues including notional fixation of pay and leave encashment by counting past service (26/08/1985 to 30/04/1987).
(B)Direct the respondents to pay interest @18% per annum on the delayed payment of DCRG and other retiral dues from the date of retirement till actual payment.
(C)Saddle the respondents with exemplary costs for mental harassment and willful delay.
(D)Any other order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit.”
Central Administrative Tribunal2. The applicant retired as Assistant Commercial Manager, Central Railway on 31.08.2019. He earlier submitted representation dated 27.08.2019 for counting of past service of one year and 8 months rendered from 26.08.1985 to 30.04.1987 at Plant Quarantine Fumigation Station at Sewri Mumbai under Directorate of Plant Protection, Ministry of Agriculture. The above representation was rejected by the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 06.12.2022. Being aggrieved by the impugned letter, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.166/2023 seeking the following main relief among the other reliefs:
“(I)That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to recalculate admissible dues on account of counting of 1 year 8 month past service draw due and drawn and grant interest on the delayed payment of the DCRG and other admissible dues with the interest @18% per annum.”
The Tribunal was pleased to allow the OA vide order dated 14.10.2024 by directing the respondents to count the past service of the applicant from the period 26.08.1985 to 30.04.1987 and accord the benefit as is admissible on account of counting of past service. Thereafter, the applicant filed Contempt Petition No.96/2025 which was disposed of with the observation that the respondents have complied with the order of the Tribunal within the prescribed period of six months and, therefore, Contempt Petition does not survive. It was further observed that “So far as interest part is concerned, the Tribunal did not grant interest and, therefore, question of paying the same does not arise.”
It has been submitted that it was incumbent upon the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to have worked out the benefits admissible to the applicant in terms of the guidelines contained in DoPT’s OM dated 17.08.2016 and other relevant circulars issued by the Ministry of Railways RBE No.169/2008 and DoPT OM dated 11.10.2022.
He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. regarding the payment of interest.
After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA. It has been submitted that the applicant had earlier filed an OA and thereafter a Contempt Petition. After disposal of the said proceedings, the applicant has again filed the present OA only for claiming interest. The payment towards counting of past service has already been granted and duly released in compliance with the orders of the Tribunal. Therefore, no further amount remains payable to the applicant. The applicant is not entitled to interest, as interest is not a matter of automatic right. In the absence of any delay, default or wilful withholding on the part of the respondents, no claim for interest survives. The present OA is misconceived, devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
It has been submitted that as per Railway Board’s letter No.PC-VI/2020/CC/13 dated 03.12.2024, notional fixation of pay is admissible only to employees retiring on 30th June or 31st December. Shri R.P. Gupta retired on 31.08.2019. Hence, he is not eligible for notional fixation of pay. Counting of past service is solely for the calculation of qualifying service for the purpose of DCRG and does not extend to any other retirement benefits. Leave encashment is calculated on the basis of (Basic Pay + Dearness Allowance) multiplied qualifying service rendered has no bearing on the calculation of leave encashment.
It has been further submitted that the certified copy of the judgment dated 14.10.2014 was received by Advocate on 06.11.2024 and forwarded to the respondent’s office on 27.12.2024. The difference in DCRG amounting to Rs.28,782/- was paid to the applicant on 22.04.2025. As the judgment has been complied within stipulated time, no payment of interest is due. The applicant applied on 27.08.219 for counting of past service rendered upto 30.04.1987, after a delay of about 32 years, despite having already received terminal benefits including Provident Fund. As per Railway Board instructions dated 08.04.1985, the option for counting past service was required to be exercised within one year of absorption, failing which the employee is deemed to have opted for SRPF benefits. Further, as per DoP&PW letter dated 29.04.2002, refund of Provident Fund with applicable and penal interest is mandatory for such cases. The Directorate vide letter dated 14.07.2022 expressed inability to process the claim due to non-availability of records and prior acceptance of technical resignation. However, this Tribunal vide judgment dated 14.10.2024 directed grant of benefit of past service for the purpose of DCRG. The said directions have been complied with. Further, Contempt Petition No.96/2025 was disposed of by this Tribunal on 29.09.2025.
It has been submitted that the present Original Application is a repetitive and unnecessary round of litigation after disposal of the earlier OA and CP. The applicant, having already received the admissible monetary benefit, is now seeking to reopen the matter without any fresh cause of action.
Thereafter, the applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating and elaborating his earlier submission in the OA. According to the applicant, the respondents have calculated leave encashment for 292 days amounting to Rs.10,76,291/- and half leave encashment of 8 days amounting to Rs.14,694/-. However, as per the applicant’s calculation, the total leave salary due is Rs.11,51,280/- and thus, there has been a shortfall of Rs.63,895/- and he is entitled for the said amount.
During arguments, the applicant in person has argued on the basis of pleadings and placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thangam and Another V.s Navamani Ammal in Civil Appeal No.8935/2011 decided on 04.03.2024 which deals with Rule 5 of Order VIII of the CPC.
Learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Sangeeta Yadav raised the preliminary objection on the basis of Section 11 of the CPC 1908 contending that the applicant has raised the ground in the OA which has already been adjudicated by this Tribunal and, therefore, the same is hit by res-judicata as per Section 11 of the CPC, 1908. She further submitted that it can be seen from OA No.166/2023 that the applicant has raised the same ground in this OA which were raised in the earlier OA. She pointed out prayer clause 8(b) which is exactly the same which was raised in OA No.166/2023. Similarly, his prayer for notional fixation of pay and leave encashment by counting past service from 26.08.1985 to 30.04.1987 has already been adjudicated by this Tribunal in para 10 of the order dated 14.10.2024.
I have considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
It is seen from OA No.166/2023 that the applicant has claimed following reliefs in that OA :
“(i)That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously call for records and proceedings which led to passing the impugned order dated 18.11.2022 and 06.12.2022 and after examining its legality quash the same the declare the same as of as illegal and arbitrary issued in violation of the Rules.
(ii)That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to recalculate the DCRG and other pensionary benefits and pay the difference with the interest @18% per annum.
(iii)That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow heavy cost in favour of the applicant.
(iv)That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass any other order or direction as may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The Tribunal vide order dated 14.10.2024 has disposed of the above OA with the following observations:
“9.It is not disputed by the respondents that the applicant had made an application to the Railways before joining the Plant Quarantine and Fumigation Department. Therefore, the condition mentioned in the OM dated 17th August, 2016 cannot be made applicable to him. While, tendering resignation on 30th April, 1987 the applicant has specifically mentioned in his application that he had been offered a post of Senior Clerk in Railway and therefore, he is resigning from his present post from 1st May. These wordings make it clear that this was a technical resignation though the application is not properly worded. In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to treat this resignation as technical resignation.
10.In view of the above, the applicant is entitled to the counting of past service. OA is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to count the past service of the applicant from the period 26th August, 1985 to 30th April, 1987 and accord the benefit as is admissible on account of counting of past service.”
Thereafter, the applicant has filed Contempt Petition which has been disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 29.09.2025 with the following observation:
“3.We have heard learned counsel for the respondents.
4.The order of this Tribunal was passed on 14th October, 2024 and the arrears have been paid to the applicant on 22nd April, 2025, which means within six months from the date of passing of the order. As per Section 27 (Execution of orders of a Tribunal) of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 if no timeframe is prescribed, order has to be complied within a period of six months. Respondents have complied with the order within a period of six months. Therefore, Contempt does not survive. Contempt Petition is, therefore, disposed of. Notices stand discharged. No costs.”
In this regard, it will be worthwhile to Central Administrative Tribunalextract herein Section 11 of the CPC which reads as under:
“11.Res judicata.— No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
Explanation I.—The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to a suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
Explanation II.—For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
Explanation III.—The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
Explanation IV.—Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
Explanation V.—Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
Explanation VI.—Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.
1[Explanation VII.—The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
Explanation VIII. —An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.]
The reliance placed by the applicant on the judgements cited by him is misplaced as the issue involved in those cases pertain to inclusion of qualifying service under Pension Rules. The respondents have categorically stated that his past service has already been counted and he is being granted and released the benefits. It is clear from the observation of the Tribunal in CP in the order dated 29.09.2025 in which it was stated that “So far as interest part is concerned, the Tribunal did not grant interest and, therefore, question of paying the same does not arise.” Thus, raising the same ground which has already deemed to have been rejected by the Tribunal is squarely hit by res-judicata as per Section 11 of the CPC 1908. Therefore, I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Sangeeta Yadav that the OA is not maintainable as the applicant is seeking the same relief which was sought earlier also and which has already been adjudicated and rejected by this Tribunal.
Therefore, the OA is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.