TRILOK CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking implementation by the respondents of their own order dated 9.3.2009 revising provisional pension of the applicant as per VIth Pay Commissions recommendations, a copy of which is at Annexure C. Even though the applicant has been informed of the revision of his pay as aforesaid, the respondents are yet to release the benefits of the revised pension to the applicant even after about three years of the passing of the order of revision referred to above.

(2.) The applicant is an old person of 72 years. He retired on 31.12.1997 as Executive Engineer (MIS) (NDZIV). He was granted provisional pension only in terms of Rule 69 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 on account of pendency of judicial proceedings against him in respect of death of his daughter -in -law. The applicant had earlier filed OA being OA No.1558 of 1998 for release of regular pension which was dismissed vide order dated 7.12.1999 in view of pendency of judicial proceedings against him. On the implementation of recommendations of the VIth Pay Commission, the respondents issued order dated 9.3.2009 and revised the provisional pension of the applicant. As per this order, the applicant is entitled for Rs.13,286/ - with DA reliefs w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as provisional pension till his case for regular pension is finalized. However, the applicant has not been given the provisional pension as per the order dated 9.3.2009. The applicant has been pursuing the matter with the respondents and made various personal visits to the respondents offices, last of which was on 3.2.2012 when he visited the office of respondent no.5 in this regard. The applicant is quite old and is a patient of various old age ailments and also suffering from financial hardships. The respondents inaction in giving effect to their own order dated 9.3.2009 has added to his woes. Feeling Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this Application seeking directions to the respondents to release the provisional pension to the applicant strictly in accordance with their own order dated 9.3.2009 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and DA as applicable along with interest.

(3.) At the hearing, the applicants counsel submits that there is no dispute between the parties in the matter. What the applicant is seeking is the implementation by the respondents of their own order. The applicant fails to understand as to why he is not being paid provisional pension as per the revised rates in terms of the order which the respondents themselves have issued upon the implementation of the VI -th Pay Commissions recommendations. effect. In these circumstances, the short prayer made by the applicants counsel is that the respondents be directed to treat this Application as a representation of the applicant and take appropriate decision thereon. Either they release the amount of provisional pension as due and admissible in terms of their own order dated 9.3.2009 or else they inform the applicant the reasons for not doing so through a speaking order. Thereupon, the applicant may decide what further course of action needs to be taken in the matter.