DEBENDRANATH MOHANTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who was working under the then South Eastern Railways, has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the Order dtd. 18/5/2020 passed in O.A. No. 260/00869 of 2016, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has denied him interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits, and to issue direction to the Opposite Parties to grant interest @ 12% per annum on such retirement financial benefits.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the Petitioner joined in the Railway service on 1/1/1983 and was confirmed on 9/1/1991 under the then South Eastern Railways. The Petitioner was then empanelled for promotion/regularization as Junior Clerk, after he was selected on the basis of written examination, vide Order dated 22/23/1/1998. Consequently, he was regularized as Junior Clerk with effect from 1/2/1992 and promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on ad hoc basis with effect from 1/2/1994, vide Office Order dtd. 11/6/1998. The Deputy Chief Personnel Officer (Construction), South Eastern Railways, vide Office Order dtd. 24/7/2002, revised the date of promotion of the Petitioner as Senior Clerk and directed for recovery of the promotional benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, by filing O.A. No. 691 of 2002. The said Original Application was disposed of, vide order dtd. 8/2/2008, by quashing the order of recovery and directing the authorities to maintain the Office Order granting promotion to the petitioner intact. The Opposite Parties filed W.P.(C) No. 12691 of 2008 challenging the order dtd. 8/2/2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 691 of 2002. During pendency of the said Writ Petition before this Court, the Petitioner retired from service on 28/2/2009. The Opposite Parties, instead of releasing the retirement benefits admissible to the Petitioner, withheld the same along with productive linked bonus for the year 2008-09 and benefit of MACP as well as the increment of Grade Pay, as due and admissible after 1/1/2006, on the ground of pendency of the Writ Petition before this Court.

(3.) Pursuant to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the Opposite Parties filed their Counter Affidavit stating inter alia that the retirement benefits to the Petitioner had been withheld owing to pendency of the Writ Petition before this Court and not because of administrative lapses. During pendency of the Writ Petition, neither gratuity nor final pension could be sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner due to stipulation in Rules-10(1)(c) and 10(2) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The claim of productive linked bonus for the financial year 2008-09 was paid to the Petitioner on 12/3/2018. As regards the MACP claimed, the Petitioner had joined in the post of Khalasi (equivalent Grade Pay of Rs.1800.00), then availed regular promotion to the post of Junior Clerk (equivalent Grade Pay Rs.1900.00) and thereafter availed one ad hoc promotion to post of Senior Clerk (equivalent Grade Pay of Rs.2800.00), and since the Petitioner retired in equivalent Grade Pay of Rs.2800.00, he was eventually drawing higher Grade Pay than what he would have availed had he got third MACP benefit. Therefore, he is not entitled to get any further MACP benefits. Accordingly, relying upon Rule-10 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, the Tribunal on consideration of the rival claims, opined that the delay being not attributable to the Railways Administration, the Petitioner is not entitled to interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits. Accordingly, the Tribunal, by the impugned order dtd. 18/5/2020, dismissed the Original Application, which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.