ANAND R N Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein joined as Supervisor in Ammunition Factory of Pune on 2-12-1961. He was promoted to the post of Chargeman - Grade I subsequently. He was selected as Assistant Director - Grade I in Small Industries Service Institute and was posted at Gauhati and Bombay during the period from 5-11-1973 to November, 1979. He was removed from service. But he obtained re-employment in the same department. He worked as Deputy Director at Bombay, Srinagar and Hyderabad till the date of his retirement on 31-7-1997. His pensionary benefits were settled and paid on the date of his retirement itself.

(2.) It is not in dispute that upon retirement an employee and his family members are entitled to travelling allowance to settle down in his home town. However, the same are subject to the conditions:

(3.) However, there exists power to extend the time limit if any special circumstances exist therefor. The petitioner contends that his provident fund amount had not been paid to him at the time of his retirement having not been properly accounted for and settled. He made a representation on 27-7-1998 for extending the time beyond the period of one year. He gave reminders thereto on 31-7-1998, 31-8-1998. 13-10-1998, 3-11-1998, 6-2-1999, -21-2-1999 and 3-3-1999. He made a representation before the President of India on 20-5-1999. By a letter dated 7-9-1999 the respondents informed the petitioner that non-settlement of general provident fund is not a sufficient reason for extension of time limit for seeking travelling allowance after retirement. He being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed by an order dated 18-2-2000. This petitioner submitted before us that a banker's cheque dated 11-7-2000 for a sum of Rs. 12,750.00 was given towards final settlement of GPF final payment. Our attention has further been drawn to the fact that only on 21-6-2000 the details of the provident fund amount due to the petitioner had been furnished. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents herein have failed to consider sub-rule(4) of Rule 11 in its proper perspective and thus acted illegally in passing the order dated 7-9-1999 impugned before the Tribunal. Our attention has also been drawn to Rule 35 of the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules. The petitioner contends that the amount of interest had not been calculated as would appear from the fact that only after filing of the writ application a further amount of Rs. 12,759/-by way of interest had been paid to the petitioner. It has also not been shown that as to how from 1973 to June, 2000 the interest has been calculated. Rule 34 of the Rules reads thus: