S R BHANRALE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This is rather an unfortunate case. The appellant joined his service as an Engineering Supervisor in the year 1946. He served the department in various capacities and superannuated on 31st July, 1984 when he was serving as an Officiating Assistant Director General (LTP) Department of Telecommunications Government of India, New Delhi. An order for payment of pension was issued on 24-8-1984 and the pension amount was paid to him on 11-9-1984. The Union of India which was under a statutory obligation to settle and decide his retiral benefits and other claims by 31st July, 1984 failed to discharge those statutory obligations and his claims remained unsettled. The appellant had to undergo tremendous hardship as his claim for encashment of earned leave increment arrears, special pay due, LTC etc. remained unsettled and his numerous representations to the department also evoked no response. The appellant thereafter served a notice under S.80, CPC claiming his dues together with interest and compensation. Even that did not make the respondents move. Ultimately, the appellant filed an original application in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench NewDelhi in 1987. The Tribunal issued notice to the respondents and granted numerous opportunities to the Union of India to file the counter and meet the claims as set up by the appellant. No counter was however, filed and the claim remained unrebutted. However, the Central Administrative Tribunal through the order impugned in this appeal rejected the application of the appellant and awarded a lump sum amount of "Rs.200/-"by way of interest on delayed payment of death cum-retirement gratuity and G.P.F. "as full compensation". The D.C.R.G. was paid to the appellant on 10-12-1984 and G.P.F. on 1-2-1985. The appellant approached this Court.

(3.) On notice being issued in the Special Leave Petition, the respondents filed their counter along with some documents in this court denying the claim and pleading that his claim for encashment of earned leave, increment arrears etc, was barred by time. By an order dated 10th April, 1995 we directed the General Manager, respondent No. 3, to look into the grievances of the appellant as projected in the affidavits filed by him before the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as in this Court and submit a detailed affidavit about the merits of those grievances. Various proceedings took place thereafter but we do not find it necessary to advert to those proceedings. Suffice it to say that after initially denying all the claims of the appellant, the Department of Telecommunications on 21st April, 1986 conceded through a statement filed in this Court under the signatures of Shri 0.P.Arya, Director (TS), which was also supported by an affidavit of Shri Arya, that certain claims made by the appellant towards leave encashment, efficiency bar arrears and proforma promotion arrears were due to the appellant and after calculating the same, were paid to the appellant by means of different cheques in this Court. A total amount of Rs.19, 551/- has been paid to the appellant during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court towards the claims made by the appellant for leave encashment (Rs. 9059/-) increment arrears as crossing efficiency bar (Rs. 4499/-), proforma promotion arrears (Rs. 5993). Other claims were not admitted.