AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Review applicants in RA 21/2023 are the respondents in the Original Application whereas the original applicant has filed RA 24/2023. Parties will be referred as per their position in the O.A.
By order dated 18.05.2023 the O.A. was disposed of by this Tribunal directing the respondents to release the gratuity amount due to the applicant within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant is a Railway pensioner who retired from service on superannuation on 31.03.2020 as Track Maintainer after putting in 40 years of service. His grievance was that even after lapse of time since the date or superannuation, his pension and other pensionary benefits have not been released on the premise that he was involved in a criminal case, in which charge sheet was laid by the Crime Branch. He contended that the allegations in the charge sheet are totally unrelated to discharge of functions as a Railway employee, he has not put any loss or damage to the Railway properties and there is absolutely no reason for withholding his pensionary benefits. The claim was resisted by the respondents alleging that he had committed misconduct as a Railway employee, since he violated the provisions of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules. Rule 10(c) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules prohibits releasing of gratuity amount and therefore there is justification in not releasing the gratuity amounts.
After hearing counsel on both sides, by order dated 18.05.2023, after referring to various provisions including Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, this Tribunal read down Rule 10(c) of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules in the present context and directed the respondents to release the gratuity amount within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Since there was prima facie reasons to doubt that the applicant had committed misconduct violating the provisions of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, his prayer for granting interest on delayed payment was declined.
RA 21/2023 has been filed by the respondents on the premise that Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act does not cover the applicant who was an employee in the Railway Service and therefore Payment of Gratuity Act is not applicable. According to them, it is an error apparent on the face of the records and therefore the order is sought to be recalled and reviewed. This RA has been opposed by the applicant. According to him, Payment of Gratuity Act was referred only in the discussion in the course of the order and that does not alter the intention or final outcome of the order. So, the application is sought to be dismissed.
RA 24/2023 has been filed by the original applicant stating that apart from the DCRG, pension commutation also ought to have been ordered to be released, which forms part of the reliefs prayed for. But that relief is not granted. It is an error apparent on the face of the records which causes him serious hardships. So the order is sought to be reviewed to incorporate that relief as well. This application has been opposed by the respondents. According to them, Rule 5 of the Railway Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules imposes restriction on commutation of pension and therefore Railway pensioner, against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are pending as referred to in Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, is not entitled to get the commuted value released. Since that was not considered by the Tribunal, it should be presumed that, that part of the prayer was declined.
I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Even though the applicant does not fall within the scope of Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act where the employee is defined. It may be true that gratuity mentioned in Rule 10(c) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules is one defined in Rule 3(14) of the Rules. At the same time, the argument that payment of Gratuity Act 1972 is not applicable is not acceptable in the light of the orders issued by the Railway Board. I have come across atleast two such orders RBE No.46/86 dated 26.02.1986 ad RBE No.130/2000 dated 30.06.2000. These orders govern the cases of casual labourers who were later absorbed in Railway Service. The claim of the applicant that he had started as a casual labourer in 1980 and was later regularised on 15.05.1989 is not disputed. That means, in all probability, the applicant on regularisation must have opted to be governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act. Therefore, for the technical reason that a Railway employee does not fall within the definition, the amount due as DCRG cannot be denied to him.
As rightly pointed out by the original applicant, the order has to be read as a whole. Even if there is prohibition in releasing the gratuity amount, which is admittedly due to the applicant, this Tribunal found that merely for the reason that he had involved in a criminal case, which is pending indefinitely, such amounts cannot be withheld with no object. Thus after making an interpretation in the context this Tribunal was reading down Rule 10(c) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, in the present context.
In my considered opinion, there is absolutely nothing to review and set aside the order passed by this Tribunal on 18.05.2023. The RA is to be dismissed.
The applicant had sought for releasing the entire pensionary benefits including gratuity, commuted value of pension etc. During the course of pendency of the O.A., he was granted provisional pension, which is as good as full pension, and certain other amounts due to him. In fact, when argued, non-payment of commuted value of pension was not brought to my specific attention. It is an omission on the part of the Court which cannot prejudice the applicant. In my view, all the reasons stated for releasing of gratuity are equally applicable to commuted value of pension also. Therefore, the amounts due towards commuted value of pension shall also be released to the applicant.
RA 24/2020 is disposed of as above.