AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
1 The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of AT Act 1985 seeking relief for issuance of direction to the respondent to grant all consequential benefits of order dated 19.03.2019 (Ann. A/1) whereby in pursuance to his acquittal as per the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat vide its order dated 06.03.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.1296/2004, the O/o. respondent no.1 set aside the penalty of “dismissal from service” imposed upon the applicant vide order dated 30.08.2005 and also prayed grant of regular pension to the applicant with 10% interest. He further prayed for direction to pay special cost and compensation to him for mental torture and the cost of present litigation.
2 In the present case, it is noticed that vide order no. 8-78/2005-Vig-II dated 19.03.2019 (Ann. A/1), the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi, taking into consideration the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat dated 06.03.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.1296/2004, whereby the order dated 19.07.2004 of conviction and sentence in RC No.9/98 passed by Court of Special Judge and Sessions Judge, Amreli in the case of present applicant was set aside and on consideration of representation of the applicant consequent upon his acquittal for cancellation of dismissal order and payment of all consequential benefit including reinstatement, the Competent Authority set aside the penalty order dated 30.08.2005 of “dismissal from service” imposed on the applicant while he was working as JTO (now retired), Amreli. Further, it is noticed that the Competent Authority also held that the intervening period, i.e., period between date of dismissal to the date of attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., from 08.08.2005 to 31.05.2012 be treated as duty for all purpose and full pay and allowances be paid to Shri V. S. Vaghasiya, i.e., applicant herein for the said period as per provisions under FR-54-A(3).
3 It is the grievance of the applicant that in spite of repeated representations, the respondent had not paid the consequential benefits pursuant to the order dated 19.03.2019. Hence, the applicant has filed present OA.
4 Respondent no.1 has filed their reply and submitted that initially the applicant was DoT recruited employee and subsequently he opted for absorption in BSNL. Therefore, the entire paperwork for the grant of benefit has to be done by BSNL. On receipt of papers / records of the applicant his claim shall be processed for payment.
5 Respondent no.2, i.e., BSNL has also filed its reply and contended that initially the applicant was engaged by the DoT and on formation of BSNL, the applicant came to BSNL on deemed deputation and retired from BSNL. However, his absorption with BSNL was not finalized till his retirement. On his retirement, applicant made a request that his pensionary benefits may be finalized as per BSNL pay scale. Accordingly, BSNL has approached DoT and finally on 18.02.2021 a presidential order came to be issued absorbing the applicant in BSNL w.e.f. 01.10.2000. The counsel for the respondent no.2 has placed the copy of said order dated 18.02.2021 on record (Ann. R/1).
It is submitted that after receipt of the said order dated 18.02.2021, BSNL has to prepare applicant’s final pension papers considering the fact that he has retired from service as a BSNL employee.
Further, it is submitted by respondent no.2 that before the pension papers of the applicant was submitted to the DoT, the applicant herein submitted representation / application dated 24.02.2021 requesting that his pension may be finalized treating him as SDE and not as JTO. Therefore, on 27.02.2021 (Ann. R/2), the BSNL had prepared his provisional struck off order and details of final pension, was forwarded to DoT. Further, it is submitted that the application of the applicant for granting promotion as SDE has been sent to Circle Office at Ahmedabad for further process. As per direction issued by this Tribunal vide order dated 02.03.2021, the final retirement order and struck off order as JTO based on presidential order dated 19.03.2019 was sent to DoT for release of pensionary benefits of the applicant.
Thereafter, as per direction of this Tribunal vide order dated 28.07.2021, respondent no.2 has filed additional affidavit dated 25.08.2021 whereby the respondent no.2 has stated that the applicant has been absorbed in BSNL w.e.f. 01.10.2000 as per presidential order dated 18.02.2021. As per the policy, BSNL was responsible to make the payment of insurance, salary arrears and leave encashment of the applicant. Rest of the terminal dues like pension, CVP, Gratuity, arrears of pension etc. were to be paid by DoT.
Accordingly, following payments have been made to the applicant:-
| Particulars | Amount | Paid by | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| (i) GPF | Rs. 6,77,864/- | DOT | 05.01.2009 |
| (ii) CGEGIS | Rs. 23,798/- | BSNL | 06.04.2009 |
| (iii) Gratuity | Rs.10,00,000/- | DOT | 03-2021 |
| (iv) CVP | Rs. 6,95,608/- | DOT | 03-2021 |
| (v) Arrears of Salary | Rs.42,21,966/- | BSNL | 22.07.2021 |
| (vi) Leave Encashment | Rs. 6,41,220/- | BSNL | 22.07.2021 |
Monthly Pension (Paid and to be paid by DOT) 1. 30.03.2021 to 29.03.2036 Rs.13,411/-2. 01.06.2012 to 09.06.2013 Rs.20,460/-3. From 10.06.2013 onwards Rs.21,595/-
Therefore, it is stated that as on today, there is no retiral dues of the applicant pending for payment. The details of the payments made to the applicant as prepared by the Account Officer (TA, O/o. PGMTD, Surat) dated 24.08.2021 (Ann. R/1) has been placed on record in support of the said submissions.
6 The applicant has filed his reply to the additional affidavit filed by the respondent and submits that the reply filed by the authority of the BSNL have no locus standi to appear for the General Manager, Telecom District, Valsad nor can they file reply on behalf of UOI. However, without prejudice to the said preliminary objections, the applicant ventilate his other grievance that the respondent had illegally withheld the amount payable to the applicant since 2019, and the said payment has been made after much delay, i.e., in the month of March 2021 and July 2021. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for 12% interest on the said delayed payment. In this regard, Learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Alok Shankar Pandey Vs. UOI, (ii) D. D. Tiwari (D) Thr. Lrs Vs. Uttar Hariyana Bijli Vitran Nigam and further submits that in case of Gyanprakash Sharma Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, reported in 2002 (1) ATJ 227, the Tribunal allowed 18% interest on retirement benefits. Therefore, he submits that OA is required to be allowed with costs and interest on delayed payment.
7 Heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the material placed on record.
8 In the present case it can be seen that undisputedly all the payments (i.e. Gratuity, CVP, Arrears of salary and leave encashment) have been duly made to the applicant by the respondent in the month of March/July 2021 as per the details stated herein above. However, as far as the claim of applicant for grant of interest on delayed payment is concerned, the same is not tenable. In this regard, it is noticed that while applicant was working as JTO in DOT, he came to BSNL on deemed deputation and due to his conviction in criminal case, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 08.08.2005 and subsequently, on his acquittal vide judgment dated 06.03.2018 passed by Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1296/2004, his penalty order of dismissal from service was set aside by the Competent Authority vide order dated 19.03.2019. In the meantime, applicant attained the age of superannuation and since his absorption in BSNL was not finalized till his retirement, the pensionary benefits could not be finalized as per BSNL pay scale. The BSNL approached the DOT and finally on 18.02.2021 a presidential order came to be issued absorbing the applicant in BSNL w.e.f. 01.10.2000. Accordingly, the BSNL prepared the pension papers of the applicant and before its submission to DOT, the applicant submitted an application requesting that his pension may be finalized treating him retired from BSNL as SDE and not as JTO. Therefore, the BSNL again prepared his provisional struck off order and details were submitted for preparing final pension accordingly. Thereafter, since applicant was without pension, this Tribunal on 12.03.2021 directed the respondents to look into the entire claim of the applicant for the purpose of expeditiously releasing the pension and other retiral dues so as to enable the applicant to get his legitimate dues at the earliest. Accordingly, the BSNL by taking into consideration the presidential order dated 18.02.2021 whereby the applicant has been absorbed as JTO w.e.f. 01.10.2000 at the O/o GMTD, Valsad, Gujarat, had submitted final retirement order and struck off order of the applicant as JTO sent to DOT on 05.03.2021 and thereafter all the retirement dues have been paid by the BSNL and the DOT to the applicant in the month of March 2021 and July 2021. At this stage it is apt to mention that the Presidential Order was issued only on 18.02.2021 and admittedly in the month of March 2021, the payment of gratuity and CVP has been made by the DoT and the arrears of salary amounting to Rs.42,21,966/- and leave encashment amounting to Rs.6,41,220/- has been paid by the BSNL in the month of July 2021 to the applicant and his month pension has been fixed and disbursed in time. Under the circumstances, taking note of the explanation of the respondents with respect to payment made to the applicant, we do not find the claim for interest on delayed payment tenable. There cannot be dispute with respect to ratio laid down in the judgments which are relied upon by the counsel for the applicant, but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
9 In view of above discussion we do not find any reason to issue any direction as prayed for by the applicant in the present OA. Hence, OA stands dismissed.
At this stage liberty is granted to applicant to make a representation regarding any legitimate payments left out to the respondents with details within 30 days from receipt of copy of this order and on receipt of such representation, respondents are directed to consider and decide the legitimacy of the claim and pass necessary order within two months from the date of receipt of such representation. No orders as to costs.