Santar Pal vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors

The applicant has filed this OA, seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) To direct the respondents to release the regular pension and retiral benefits to the applicant forthwith with all consequential benefits. To further

direct the respondents to release the arrears of regular pension from the date of superannuation, i.e., 31.05.2015 to the date of actual payment

forthwith.

(ii) To direct the respondents to grant 12% rate of interest on the entire amount of retiral benefits alongwith the arrears of regular pension from the

date of superannuation to the date of actual payment.

(iii) To award the cost of litigation of Rs.25,000/- in favour of applicant.

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicantâ€​.

It is the case of the applicant that after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2015, he has not been released his regular pension and retiral

benefits by the respondents despite the fact that there was neither any departmental enquiry pending against him nor was any punishment inflicted

upon him in pursuance of the notice served on him for unauthorized absence for the period from 02.02.2002 to 16.02.2015. The applicant has also

alleged that despite the various communications dated 27.04.2015, 28.04.2015, 30.04.2015, 13.05.2015 and 14.05.2015 given to the respondents, he

was not allowed to join the duty. Hence, he filed this OA.

Counsel for the respondent no.5 - SDMC has vehemently contended that they could not give pension to the applicant of this OA as he remained

unauthorisedly absent from duty w.e.f. 16.09.2010 to 31.05.2015, i.e., while posted with them for which several letters were issued to him from time to

time to join the duty but to no avail. He has annexed copies of the communications as Annexure R-1 colly and a statement of absent period of the

applicant as Annexure R-2 to support his contention that the applicant was not on duty at the time of his retirement and for the period before that.

Respondents 3 and 4 have also filed their reply and fairly stated that the applicant also remained absent from duty w.e.f. 02.02.2002 to 14.05.2015

when the MCD was unified and also after, it was trifurcated in the year 2012. As per the Section 304-A of DMC Act, every Government servant

shall be the employee of the same zone/department in which he is posted at the time of trifurcation. Thus, as per this rule, the applicant was not posted

with the NDMC at the time of trifurcation of the MCD and hence, the necessary action has to be taken by the SDMC at their end. SDMC has

accepted that the applicant was posted with them.

After hearing both the parties and going through the file, it becomes clear that the applicant remained unauthorizedly absent from duty w.e.f.

02.2.2002 to 14.05.2015 on different spells as shown in the detailed statement marked as Annexure R/2 of the CA filed by respondents 3 & 4. Thus,

the main issue in this OA is only the final settlement of the retiral benefits. Even if the claims of respondent no.5, i.e., SDMCare correct that the

applicant remained unauthorizedly absent for the period in question, they are required to take the disciplinary proceedings against the people who

remain unauthorizedly absent. They cannot simply sit back and say that because the applicant was unauthorizedly absent up to the date of his

retirement, i.e., 31.05.2015, the retiral benefits could not be released. It is their duty to give show cause notice and pass orders on the continuous

auauthorized absence of the applicant as per the procedure laid down for the same, in the shortest possible time. Hence, in view of the totality of facts

and circumstances, the respondents are directed to give a show cause notice to the applicant and obtain his comments on his unauthorized absence

and then proceed further as per the rules and conclude the proceedings after affording a reasonable opportunity to the applicant to participate and

represent his case within the shortest possible time, preferably within 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, they will

dispose of the issue of entitlement of pension and other pensionary benefits, if any, to the applicant by passing a detailed speaking order thereon within

a period of 60 days of completion of such proceedings. The applicant is also directed to cooperate in the disciplinary proceedings with a view to avoid

any undue delay in completion of the proceedings. In case of any delay caused by non-participation of the applicant, the period given for completion of

proceedings shall automatically stand extended to that extend.

With the above directions, the OA stands disposed of. No order as to costs.