Raj Kumar & Ors. vs Uoi & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2787 Del

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                              W.P. (C.) No.730/2009

%                           Date of Decision: 26.05.2010

Raj Kumar & Ors.                                            .... Petitioners
                           Through Mr. H.P. Chakravorti, Advocate

                                    Versus

UOI & Anr.                                               .... Respondents
                           Through Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be                YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                   NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in               NO
       the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 7th March, 2006

passed by the Central Administrative Tribnunal, Principal Bench in OA

1785/2005 titled as Sh. Om Prakash Vs. Union of India through

General Manager, Northern Railway and Anr., dismissing the petition of

Late Sh. Om Prakash, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative

Tribunal's Act, 1985 seeking direction to the respondents to revise the

pay in grade of Rs.4500-7000 w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 and to grant

difference of pay and also to pay interest @ 18% at the amount due

w.e.f. 1st October, 1996.

Late Sh. Om Prakash was initially appointed as Lamp Man in

1960 and had been promoted to the rank of Shunting Jamadar and

thereafter to Shunting Master in the grade of 380-560/1320-2040.

The father of the petitioners alleged that because of domestic

circumstances, i.e., on account of sickness of his wife, he remained

absent for about 4-5 years and thereafter, on account of her daughter's

heart ailment, he had to go to Madras Railway Hospital and he

remained absent before he joined the duties in 1995. When he joined

after remaining absent for a number of years, he was issued major

penalty charge sheets. In respect the major penalty charge sheet no.

84TM/11/A/35/94TM dated 20th July, 1994, he was exonerated by

order dated 1st August, 1996 and in respect of another charge sheet

(SF-5) No. 84TM/11/A/23/96 dated 12th March, 1996, the penalty of

censure was imposed by order dated 14th October, 1996. The petitioners

did not disclose about any other charge sheet against their father.

Late Sh. Om Prakash's pay was however, reduced by three stages

in April, 1996 and he continued to get reduced pay which was

challenged by him after his retirement in May, 1996 in a petition filed in

2005 and contended that he was paid revised pension by PPO dated 1st

December, 1998, where his basic pay was taken as Rs. 3100/- and it

was not known to him as to on what basis his basic pay was taken as

such. According to him, he was issued another revised PPO in the scale

of Rs. 4000-6000 taking basic pay as Rs. 4100/-. According to him, the

pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 was normal replacement, however,

subsequently, shunting master has been allotted the pay scale of 4500-

7000 w.e.f. 1st January, 1996.

The pleas and contentions of the petitioner were refuted by the

respondents contending, inter alia, that the matter suffers from delay as

he retired from 31st May, 1996 and major penalty charge sheets were

issued to him about ten years back and his pay was also reduced by

three stages in from 1.4.1996 and he continue to accept the reduced

pay since April, 1996 and even after retirement in May, 1996 he

continued to get the retiral benefits on the basis of reduced pay.

Besides the two charge sheets, It was also pleaded by the

petitioners that late Sh. Om Prakash was also awarded a punishment of

reduction to three stages in time scale for one year which was affected

from 1st April, 1996 and his pay was reduced from 1380/- to Rs. 1290/-

w.e.f. 1st April, 1996 in the grade of 1200-2040 which was revised by 5th

Pay Commission and the pay became equivalent to Rs. 4000-6000 w.e.f.

1st January, 1996 and the pay was not revised to Rs. 4500/- to 7000/-.

The respondents had asserted that Late Sh. Om Prakash's

pensionery benefits had been arranged amounted at Rs. 1290/- in the

grade of 1200-2040 and revised in new scale at Rs. 4100/- in the grade

of 4000-6000, which is correct. It was also pleaded by the respondents

that late Sh. Om Prakash was working in erratic manner and he was

given punishment for his behavior which was upheld by the higher

authorities. The respondents also disclosed that late Sh. Om Prakash

had entered into a conspiracy with undesirable staff members of the

department as the record in respect of late Sh. Om Prakash had gone

missing and it was done with malafide intentions.

The pleas raised by the respondents that major penalty was

imposed upon late Sh. Om Prakash of reduction to three stages in the

time scale for one year, was not refuted before the Tribunal by filing any

rejoinder. The Tribunal has thus, accepted the pleas and contentions of

the respondents in noting that late Sh. Om Prakash remained on long

absence and was ultimately awarded the punishment of reduction of

pay and, therefore, he is not entitled for increment during that period.

It was also noticed by the Tribunal that there is no such grade of Rs.

4000-6000 as well as Rs. 5000-8000 and as when late Sh. Om Prakash

superannuated, the revised scale was Rs. 4000-6000, therefore, his pay

was rightly fixed and that pension paid to him cannot be modified and

consequently, dismissed the petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has very emphatically

contended that charge sheets for major penalty were not finalized and

the appeal against the penalty was pending at the time of his

superannuation. It is asserted that he was exonerated by order dated

1st August, 1996 and in other proceedings, he was issued the

punishment of censure only.

The petitioner, however, has admitted in para 5.5(4) of the

grounds in the present writ petition that late Sh. Om Prakash was

awarded a punishment of reduction of three stages in the time scale of

pay of Rs. 1200-2010/4000-6000 from Rs. 1380/- to Rs. 1290/- w.e.f.

1st April, 1996.

This is not disputed that reduction of pay to three stages in the

time scale of pay was made effective from 1st April, 1996. If that be so,

then despite the order dated 1st August, 1996 and 14th October, 1996

late Sh. Om Prakash was paid the pension on the basis of reduction of

his pay to three stages w.e.f. 1st April, 1996.

From the pleas and contentions raised by the parties, it is

apparent that the major penalty of reduction of three stages in the time

scale of pay of Rs. 1200-2040/4000-6000 was not quashed or modified

by the authorities and consequently, late Sh. Om Prakash also did not

challenge the reduction in the pay scale for a number of years.

The application was filed by the petitioner only in 2005. The

learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Late Shri. Om

Prakash had been making representations. However, on account of

merely making representations, the petitioners cannot justify the delay

in filing the original application before the Tribunal. The learned

counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to a

representation made in 2003. This representation, however, does not

explain that any action was taken by late Sh. Om Prakash in 1996,

when his pay was reduced to three stages on account of punishment

imposed upon him. Even in the representation dated 9th April, 2003, it

had not been disclosed that the punishment of reduction to three stages

in the time scale for one year was later on set aside. If the petitioner

was awarded the punishment of reduction to three stages in time scale

for one year effective from 1st April, 1996 which scale of pay was

accepted by Late Shri Om Prakash and even the pension was accepted

on the same basis from June, 1996 and even after October, 1996 when

allegedly he was absolved in a charge sheet, then it is apparent that he

was not absolved of charge sheet in which the punishment of reduction

of pay of three stages for one year was awarded. Had it been so Late

Shri Om Prakash would have raised dispute about it in 1996 itself. He

did not take any action till 2005 and even in the petition before the

Tribunal it has not been stated specifically that the punishment of

reduction of pay of three stages in one year was later on set aside. The

allegation of the respondents is also that Late Shri Om Praksh in

collusion was some officials of respondents had got his record

misplaced with malafide intentions. Even in the representation dated

4th December, 2003 of Late Shri Om Prakash, the grievance of getting

less pension has been made on account of non- regularization of arrears

from 1987 onwards and not on account of setting aside of the

punishment of reduction of pay to three stages in one year from

1.4.1996.

In the circumstances, the petitioners have failed to make out a

case that the punishment of reduction to three stages in the time scale

for one year affected from 1st April, 1996 could not be implemented on

the allegation that Late Shri Om Praksh was absolved of in one charge

sheet and in another charge sheet he was only awarded censure. In the

circumstances, Late Shri Om Prakash was not entitled for revision of

the pension.

In the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court does not

find any such illegality or irregularity or such perversity in the order of

the Tribunal, which will require any correction by this Court in exercise

of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition, in the circumstances, is without any merit and,

it is, therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

May 26, 2010                                    MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'