Shiv Kumar Verma vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi Through And Ors

The applicant in the OA was appointed as Lab Assistant on 03.12.1976 with the respondent department. The applicant was working in Government boys Senior Secondary School, C Block, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. He was placed under suspension w.e.f.21.04.1986 and remained under suspension upto 27.02.1989. Vide order dated 22.09.2014 the suspension period of the applicant was treated as spent on duty by the competent authority.

The applicant while posted in the office of respondent no.4 sought voluntary retirement under Rule 48(A) on 01.04.2015 (Annexure A-3). When no response was received by him on expiry of three months notice, he sent his pension papers to the office of respondent no.4 on 25.08.2015 (Annexure A-4).

The applicant avers that he is not facing any departmental inquiry or criminal trial which could be an impediment in the way of seeking voluntary retirement. The applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following reliefs :-

"(i) direct the respondents to release pension and other pensionary benefits of the applicant forthwith after treating the applicant as deemed to have been retired w.e.f.01.07.2015.

(ii) direct the respondents to pay the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the arrears;

(iii) May also pass any further order(s), direction(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice."

In their counter affidavit, the respondents submit that the applicant has been missing from duty w.e.f.12.12.2014. A complaint to this effect was also lodged by his own son with the police authorities.

4.1 The respondents have raised a preliminary objection about the authenticity of the OA and as to how a missing person can suddenly appear to file the OA. It is further mentioned that signatures of the applicant in OA do not tally with his signatures in the service book.

After receipt of the notice for voluntary retirement, the respondents on 21.04.2015 requested the applicant to appear personally in the school premises, stating that :-

"Undersigned is in receipt of your letters dated 01.04.2015, whereby one is for the EOL/Earned Leave and other is a notice for VRS. You are hereby informed that no action can be taken on the either due to the following reasons.

Signatures on both the letters differ with the signature on service records. As such authenticity of the person writing the letters cannot be established.

You are absenting from duty since 12.12.2014 without any intimation to the school and we have been provided with the copy of the FIR lodged by your son suggesting that you are missing since 12.12.2014 and not available till date.

There are certain enquiries in process against you and you are hereby directed to support such proceedings and help them to conclude and unless they are concluded no action/decision can be taken on VRS notice. Therefore your notice for VRS cannot be decided unless and until you make a personal appearance before the undersigned in the school premises."

(Annexure R-4)

5.1. When no reply was received, a reminder dated 07.05.2015 was sent to the applicant through a Special Messenger/Dak Server, who reported that the neighbours of the applicant informed him that the applicant had sold the house and moved from the given address. The respondents again received a request for payment of pension and other benefits from the applicant vide his letter dated 25.08.2015.

5.2 An e-mail dated 19.10.2015 was received from Deputy Director Education (DDE) informing that the applicant had been charge-sheeted under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 for his unbecoming conduct (Annexure R-7).

5.3 Vide letter dated 23.10.2015 the respondents (again) directed the applicant to meet the Head of the School and explain his continuous absence since 12.12.2014. (Annexure A- 9). On 20.02.2016 the applicant was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer. However it appears that all efforts to get the applicant to cooperate with the enquiry proceeding met with a dead end.

5.4 The contention of the respondents is that the applicant has to be present physically in the office of Deputy Director of Education at Pataudi House for proving that he „exists‟ and for pursuing his case for gratuity pension and other retiral benefits, to enable them to complete his service records/service particulars etc.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents Shri Vijay Pandita reiterating the issues already raised in the counter affidavit, submitted a copy of UPSC advice dated 27.11.2018 vide which the UPSC has recommended 10% cut in monthly pension of the applicant, Shri Shiv Kumar Verma for a period of two years. A copy of the advice of UPSC dated 27. 08.2018 has also been placed on record.

The learned counsel for the applicant Shri S.K.Gupta informed the bench that the only reason why the applicant went missing was because he perceived a threat to his life, having been unable to return the loans to the persons from whom he had borrowed the money. On a specific query, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Gupta made a statement at Bar that the applicant, Shri Shiv Kumar Verma, is no longer missing and is ready to cooperate with the respondents by presenting himself for processing of his pension claim.

I have gone through the facts of the case carefully and considered the rival submissions.

8.1 The sole reason due to which the retirement benefits of the applicant have been held up is the fact that the applicant who had been charge-sheeted for major penalty proceeding had been missing from duty w.e.f. 12.12.2014. This being so, at the time he gave his voluntary retirement request (01.04.2015), obviously the respondents could not have acceded to his request for voluntary retirement.

The UPSC, while considering the case of the applicant under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, in their note dated 27. 08.2018, have advised as under :-

"5. In the light of the observations and findings as discussed above and after taking into account all other aspects relevant to the case, the Commission note that the charge established against the CO constitute grave misconduct on his part and consider that the ends of justice would be met in this case if the penalty of "withholding of 10% (ten percent) of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to Shri Shiv Kumar Verma, the CO, is imposed on him for a period of two years‟ This shall be without prejudice to the administrative authorities recovering the penal dues from the CO‟s gratuity. They advise accordingly."

Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri S.K.Gupta submits that the applicant is not contesting the advise of UPSC and that the applicant may be given his pensionary dues after taking cognizance of the aforementioned advise.

The behaviour of the applicant leaves much to be desired and the explanation for his absence for four long years is on a rather weak footing. Be that as it may, based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the applicant he is given a final opportunity to mend his ways and co-operate with the respondents for getting his service particulars updated for the purpose of grant of pension and other retiral benefits.

Since the applicant is not available at the address known in the school records, he is directed to present himself before the respondents on any working day to enable them to complete the necessary formalities for releasing his pension and other pensionary benefits (after taking into account the advice of the UPSC dated 27.08.2018). Thereafter, the respondents must process his case for release of pension and other pensionary benefits, expeditiously. This exercise must be completed within four months from the date of issue of this order. Needless to add that cooperation of the applicant would be the prime consideration for facilitating the completion of pension papers etc. by the respondents.

OA is allowed with these directions. No costs.