LAWS(DLH)-2007-8-81

UNION OF INDIA Vs. BIPIN BEHARI DAS

Decided On August 24, 2007
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
BIPIN BEHARI DAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India, petitioner-herein, has assailed the order and judgment, dated 04.05.2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal, while allowing the O.A. of the respondent, directed the petitioner to accord payment of pension and other retiral benefits to the respondent herein along with interest calculated @ 12% p.a., w.e.f. 21.02.1976 till it is actually paid, with arrears thereof, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

(2.) The facts culminating into filing of the present writ petition are:- Respondent in the year 1976, while on the post of UDC, resigned from his service on 9th February, 1976 from his work in the Defunct Dandakaranya Project. The said resignation was duly accepted by the petitioner vide order dated 18th February, 1976. After acceptance of the resignation, the respondent represented to withdraw the aforesaid resignation. The petitioner"s order of acceptance of resignation was challenged before the District Judge, Koraput, Orissa. Learned District Judge vide his order dated 12.5.1978 upheld that the respondent's resignation was accepted and withdrawal of his resignation was rightly declined. The order was affirmed by the High Court as well as by the Supreme Court.

(3.) On 29.11.1989, Central Industrial Tribunal, on a reference made by the Government of India under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, referring 18 items of demand raised by the employees of Dandakarnya project, adjudicated the claims and passed an award. The demands related to regularization of all muster roll workers, who had completed 240 days with consequential benefits, reinstatement of muster roll workers with back wages, stoppage of retrenchment of all workers and other items of claim. We are concerned, in the present case, with reference of the claim of the respondent as Item No.4, which was as under: