BRAJ BHUSAN SAHAY SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri B. B. S. Srivastava has filed this Original Application with the following prayer :- a) Direct the respondents to cancel and/or set aside the impugned order dated 12.6.2003 and 18.2.2004 as set out in Annexure A-6 and Annexure A-10 respectively. b) Direct the respondents to pay the applicant gratuity money immediately along with interest from the date of such accrual till the date of actual payment. c) Direct the respondents to pay the applicant actual retirement benefits and arrear benefits, the amount of balance arrear pension and current rate of pension from the date of his retirement till today and so on the amount of pension alike his junior such as Shri A. N. Seal who retired from service on April, 2004. d) Any order and/or further order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.

(2.) The factual matrix of this case is that the applicant, while holding the post of Junior Engineer-l in the respondent department, came to be removed from service vide order dated 21.9.1992 for the alleged unauthorised absence from duty since 18.1.1988. The said removal order was set aside vide the judgement dated 12.6.2001 passed by this bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 928/1998. The directions were given to regularise the services of the applicant till the date of removal from service by granting him admissible leave and other leave for the period of unathorised absence from 1988. Thereafter, the applicant was reinstated in service vide order dated 12.6.2001 and posted against the post of Junior Engineer-l at Asansol. The period of absence from 18.1.1988 to 21.9.1992 equal to 1709 days has been sanctioned as leave without pay by the competent authority vide order dated 16.10.2001 at Annexure A/4.

(3.) The further facts of the case are that during the intervening period, since the applicant was removed from service, no salary was paid, the normal rent of the Government accommodation was not deducted, although he continued to hold the resident during the said period. It is also averred that in view of his reinstatement in service and after setting aside the disciplinary proceedings as well as removal order, he became entitled to stay in Railway quarter in which he was staying after the reinstatement of service. Further on his reinstatement, he is deemed to be in continuous service. The Railway Authorities should have deducted the normal rent of the said period since the quarter was duly allotted to him, which has not been cancelled. The impugned order dated 12.6.2003 has been passed on his appeal stating therein that the applicant was removed from service and the holding of the accommodation was unauthorised. Even on reinstatement the intervening period has not been treated as duty. Hence he cannot claim for the retention of quarter. His total amount of gratuity has been withheld. His junior is getting a higher amount of pension than the applicant. The Original Application has been filed on number of grounds mentioned in para 5 and its sub paras, which shall be dealt with in later part of this order.