Smt. Munni Shukla vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 819 Del

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. These two writ petitions are filed by the petitioner who is widow of Shri Prem Shankar Shukla who was employee of the Northern Railways before his absorption in Indian Railways Construction Company (IRCON) . The subject matter of these writ petitions is connected with each other and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. CWP. No. 396 of 2001 arises out of judgment, dated 24.11.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2341/98. Late Shri Prem Shankar Shukla (hereinafter called 'the applicant') had primarily challenged his absorption in IRCON retrospectively i.e. w.e.f. 31.8.1994 by the respondents Railways vide Office Order dated 22.2.1989. It may be mentioned at this stage that the applicant while working as Electrical Engineer in the Allahabad Division of Northern Railway had gone on deputation to IRCON on 17.8.1981 for a period of one year. This was extended further. He could remain on deputation for a maximum period of three years which period expired on 31.8.1984. The applicant had sought his absorption with IRCON w.e.f. 31.8.1984 and requested his Parent Department, namely, Northern Railways i.e. the respondents herein for this purpose. The respondents took long time to consider his request and ultimately passed order dated 25.5.1993/3.6.1993 whereby the applicant's deemed retirement/absorption was treated to be effective from 31.8.1984. The applicant submitted that retirement/absorption could not be made from retrospective effect and his submission was that it should be treated that he is deemed to have retired from Railways w.e.f. 3.6.1993 and absorbed in IRCON on that date. The Tribunal did not accept this contention. The Tribunal relied upon its Full Bench judgment in the case of Shri Vir Bhan Sood v. Union of India and Ors. - OA No. 674/91 wherein after discussing various judgments the question raised before it was answered in the following terms:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the acceptance of applicants's resignation with retrospective effect was valid?"

"Yes, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the acceptance of the applicant's resignation with retrospective effect was valid".

3. The Tribunal held that even if there was a delay on the part of the authorities in accepting his resignation/deemed retirement, the same could be accepted with retrospect effect, relying upon the aforesaid Full Bench judgment. It further noted that the facts in the applicant's case were the same as in the case of Vir Bhan Sood's case (supra) by observing as under:

"In the case of Vir Bhan Sood (supra) which was the matter before the Full Bench therein also the applicant had made a request that his retirement be effective from a particular date and the Railway authorities had taken a lot of time to issue order of acceptance and it was accepted with retrospective effect so on those facts and circumstances of the case the Full Bench had answered the question in the affirmative. Comparing the facts and circumstances of the present case with the facts and circumstances of the case before the Full Bench we find that in this case also there is an admission on the part of the applicant himself that he had made a request to the Railway authorities for acceptance of deemed retirement /absorption w.e.f. 17.8.84 and vide impugned order the request of the applicant had been accepted and he had been allowed to retire w.e.f. 31.8.84. The learned counsel for the department has also placed on record instruction regarding Government employees proceeding on deputation to some Public Sector Undertaking and the maximum period allowed for deputation is 3 years, which cannot be extended on any ground. The applicant's 3 years deputation to IRCON, a Public Sector Undertaking was to expire on 17.8.84 that is why he had asked for his retirement/absorption w.e.f. 17.8.84. Merely because of administrative delay in acceptance of his request and in the meanwhile pay revisions in his parent department, the applicant cannot be allowed to somersault and change his date of retirement, that too after enjoying the benefit of deputation for a long time".

4. Before us also the same contention was reiterated by Mr. G.D. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner. However, having regard to the aforesaid facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal.

5. There is yet another reason to reject this petition. The petitioner had also filed OA No. 1596/98 which was dismissed by order dated 11.9.2000 against which CWP.No. 395/2001 is preferred by the petitioner. In the said petition the petitioner has claimed interest on delayed payment of retirement dues and interestingly this interest is claimed treating the retirement of the applicant from Railways w.e.f. 31.8.1984. Thus this OA was filed by the petitioner accepting applicant's retirement/absorption w.e.f. 31.8.1984. CWP.No.396/2001 is accordingly dismissed.

6. Coming to CWP.395/2001, as already pointed out above, the petitioner has claimed interest on delayed release of Provident Fund and Voluntary Provident Fund. This OA of the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned judgment by observing as under:

"Applicant should have raised the issue of interest at the time when he received his dues. Apparently he did not do so at that time, raise this issue. Instead he has filed OA on 17.8.98 i.e. more than one year after receipt of retirement dues. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, he also did not challenge the PPO. However, the applicant has represented to the Railways on 24.3.98 for settlement of retrial dues stating that he had still not received the balance amount of PF/VPF and also claimed interest on the delayed payment. It is really surprising that there is no mention of commuted value of pension in the PPO. Respondents could not throw any light on the non-payment of commuted value of pension as also on the balance amount of PF/VPF as claimed by the applicant.

I find that the respondents have rightly settled all his dues and pensionary benefits. The applicant has not shown any details. The applicant has not shown any details of when he filled the relevant forms and completed the formalities for receipt of pension and pensionary benefits. In the absence of which it is difficult to assess as to who is responsible for the delay. The respondents have categorically stated that the applicant delayed in furnishing his service particulars. Applicant has no explanation for this. Therefore, I am not inclined to order any interest on the payment already received by the applicant between 30.12.96 and 24.2.97. However, since no explanation could be given about the commuted value of pension and the balance payment of PF/PVF, the applicant is directed to make a detailed representation to the respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Respondents shall consider the same and take appropriate action as per rules and communicate their decision to the applicant within two months thereafter. If the applicant is still aggrieved, it is open to him to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised. The OA is accordingly disposed of. No costs".

7. As per the aforesaid observations, interest on pensionary benefits is denied on the ground that the petitioner could not show any details of when he filled the relevant forms and completed the formalities. Mr. G.D. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, referred to his communication annexed with this petition as per which he had been demanding release of terminal dues including pension wherein the had even mentioned that he had completed the formalities. However, it is not stated whether these documents were filed before the Tribunal. The petitioner has not annexed copy of the OA along with this petition, in the absence of which we are not in a position to ascertain the aforesaid facts. The Tribunal has referred to the petitioner's representation dated 24.3.98 only. Along with this writ petition the petitioner has annexed a copy of the reply of the respondents filed to petitioner's OA and that reply also mentions about the representation dated 24.3.98 only. Moreover, in these representations it is not categorically mentioned that the petitioner had completed formalities by filling the relevant forms for receipt of pension and pensionary benefits. Therefore, in the absence of any specific documentary proof in support of this plea, we are not inclined to take a contary view. The Tribunal has further, while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interest on pension, observed that the petitioner had not raised the dues and did not challenge the PPO.

8. The exercise of powers of judicial review is available on limited grounds. When there is no illegality or irrationality in the impugned judgment, this Court would not interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

9. Insofar as interest on commuted value of pension and balance payment of PF/VPF is concerned, the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order of the Tribunal and the respondents were given two months time to take a decision thereon. The petitioner was even given liberty to approach the appropriate forum if she feels aggrieved with the decision that may be taken by the respondents. Instead of making representation the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances to the present case as also directed by the Tribunal we give another opportunity to the petitioner to make such a representation with one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and if such a representation is made, the respondents shall take decision thereon within two months thereafter.

11. Subjects to the aforesaid observations, these writ petition are dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.