RAMADHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application filed under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant, who was working as a Black Smith on the Eastern Railway at Sitarampur and who finally retired from service on 15.1.1983, has prayed that he may be given due interest as per law for delayed payment of his benefits as well as refund of wages deducted as overdrawn for the period from 1.8.1982 to 15.1.1983. He has further prayed that the deduction of the monthly pension for this period should also not have been made and he should be refunded the same as well. The further prayer made by him is in regard to the refund of the deducted house -rent amount for he was made to work and kept the quarter in his occupation because he was not paid his retiral dues.

(2.) The applicant's case is that according to his recorded date of birth he should have retired from service on 31.7.1982, but he was made to mark till 15.1.1983 when he was asked to retire from service. He had not been given any notice prior to such retirement. He was also not informed of the aunt that was due to be paid to him on retirement until such time as this Tribunal directed the respondents to make the payment, but the item of each head of payment was not disclosed to him and therefore he could not challenge the same. He has also stated that if the respondents had given his settlement dues in time, there was no occasion for him to continue in occupation of the railway quarter which he vacated on 30.3.1985. He has challenged the recovery of Rs. 4360.17p. on account of the salary overdrawn by him during this period. The challenge is based on the ground that this deduction should have been made from the dues of the Officer who permitted him to continue in service beyond the date of his superannuation.

(3.) The application has been opposed by the respondents on the ground of limitation and on the ground that it is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. The respondents' case is that due to oversight the applicant was kept in service beyond the date of superannuation. The applicant had filed a suit No. T.S. 11 of 1984 in the Court of Learned First Munsif at Asansol for declaration and mandatory injunction. This suit was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta under Sec. 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and was registered as T.A. 1841 of 1986 and was decided on 10.4.1987. The Tribunal had held that the period of service of the applicant from 1.8.1982 to 15.1.1983 should be treated as period of service on re -employment and that he should be paid salary, etc., according to rules for re -employment. By this judgment, the Tribunal had also directed that the railways were at liberty to realise from the applicant whatever amount that was admissible to be realised under the rules for occupation of the quarter after retirement. The applicant vacated the quarter on 30.3.1985. The respondents' case is that the reliefs that the applicant has claimed by this application should have been raised by him in the suit filed in the Munsif's Court at Asansol and since be did not raise them there, the same could not be raised by him now as they are barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. The applicant's case was regularised as one on re -employment on receipt of the Railway Board's Letter No. E(G) 86/RT -2/23 dated 29.8.8,6. At the time when the applicant was continuing in service beyond the date of his superannuation, he was at the stage of Rs. 480 in the time -scale of pay of Blacksmith in the grade of Rs. 330 -480 end since his superannuation pension became effective from 1.8.82 and he had been drawing full salary during the period, which was decided as re -employment, the over -drawn salary was assessed through the ascertainment of pensionary equivalent and an amount of Rs. 4360.17 which was over -drawn salary was recovered from the DCRG of the applicant. According to the respondents the applicant is misinterpreting the issues relating to his re -employment and wants to enjoy the twine benefits of full pension and full salary for the period of his re -employment. They have denied that any illegal recovery has been made from the dues of the applicant. As far as recoveries for the house rent are concerned, according to the respondents, recoveries have been made as per railway rules in regard to retention of railway quarter after retirement. Similarly, electricity charges have also been recovered in accordance with the relevant rules.