MEENA BHANDARI Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vikas Bali, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Shri Barjesh Mittal, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has laid challenge to the judgment and order dated 05.02.2015 passed by Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the Original Application filed by the petitioner. Petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') by making an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act claiming (i) release of gratuity, pension and arrears of pension alongwith interest 18% per annum, (ii) release of her GPF amount of Rs. 86100/- along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 28.07.2009, (iii) interest on delayed payments of retiral dues like gratuity, GIS, leave encashment from the date the amount became due till actual date of payment and (iv) to grant pensionary benefits after counting the service rendered in Punjab Engineering College.

(3.) The petitioner joined the service as Clerk on regular basis on 25.02.1983 in the Chandigarh Administration. Prior thereto she also worked on adhoc basis w.e.f. 11.03.1980 to 24.02.1983 in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. Admittedly, she retired as Senior Assistant on 30.11.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. She was given an extension and was finally relieved from service on 31.05.2013.