Delhi High Court
Ruderasrey Sharma vs Union Of India And Anr. on 9 December, 2015
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5055/2015
% Date of Judgment : 09.12.2015
RUDERASREY SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Meenu Mainee, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Jagjit Singh, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr. Preet Singh and
Mr. Pranav Agrawal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 09.12.2015
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 20.03.2014 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the OA filed by the
petitioner seeking fixation of pay and subsequent increase in pension
stands dismissed on merits and also on the ground of limitation and
also the subsequent order dated 24.07.2014 passed in a Review
Petition filed by the petitioner herein.
2. The basic facts are not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed in
the year 1949 as a Group 'D' employee with the Railways. He retired
after having superannuated on 31.05.1987 and thereafter has been
continuously drawing pension. As per the petitioner, it is only when
the respondents discontinued issuing a first class pass which he was
entitled to he realized that there was a mistake in his pay fixation.
That realization came to the petitioner somewhere in the middle of the
year 2012. The petitioner thereafter made a representation which was
rejected and which then led to the filing of an OA.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged before this
court that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that
payment of pension is a recurring cause of action and thus the bar of
limitation would not stand in the way of the petitioner. He submits
that the petitioner is even willing to give up his past claim and press
his claim from the year 2012 onwards. Reliance is placed on Union
of India Vs. P K. Rosha : 2012 (2) SLJ 231.
4. Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel for the respondent who has entered
appearance for the respondents on an advance copy, has opposed this
petition and submits that the Tribunal has not only considered the case
of the petitioner on the ground that the same is barred by limitation
but also decided the matter on merits. He submits that there is no
document placed on record by the petitioner to show that what was his
last drawn pay as the pension has to be fixed on an average of last 10
months of employment with the petitioner. He further submits that
there is no record available with the respondent on the basis of which
it can be ascertained as to what was the last drawn pay of the
petitioner except the pension payment order, a copy of which has been
placed on record by the petitioner pertaining to year 1999 as per
which the last drawn pay of the petitioner was Rs. 1,270/- as on
31.05.1987. Counsel submits that what is sought to be challenged is
the fixation of pay and not the grant of pension and thus the judgment
sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner
would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
5. Attention of this court is drawn to Para 3 of the order dated
20.03.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal where the
stand of the respondent was noticed. Para 3 of the order dated
20.03.2014 is reproduced as under :
"The respondents have filed a counter reply refuting
the claim made by the applicant. It is stated that as
per PPO (Annexure A-1 to the O.A.) the last pay
drawn by the applicant at the time of his retirement
was Rs. 1270/-. As per Schedule II to the Railway
Servants Pass Rules, 1986, a Group „C‟ employee
appointed prior to 1.8.1969 drawing pay at Rs. 1530/-
or above is entitled to first class Railway Pass and
therefore, applicant, whose pay was Rs. 1270/- at the
time of retirement, was not entitled to First Class
Railway Pass. It is further stated by the respondents
that applicant having retired on 31.5.1987 and in the
meantime more than 26 years having elapsed from the
date of his retirement, no other authentic document is
available at this distant point of time in respect of the
applicant regarding his pay, pension, etc. In the
above view of the matter, respondents have prayed for
dismissal of the Original Application."
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
7. The averments made by the petitioner before the Tribunal which have
been noticed by the Tribunal would show that the case of the
petitioner was that there was an error in the fixation of his pay and
subsequently he was getting less pension and this fact is noticed in
Para 4 of the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has also taken
note of the fact that 26 years have elapsed and the M.A. filed by the
petitioner seeking condonation of delay does not disclose sufficient
grounds. The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that the
petitioner woke up only when first class pass which was provided to
him was discontinued whereas the cause of action in favour of the
petitioner arose when his pay was fixed subsequent to which he was
drawing pension.
8. We find that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal after 26 years.
The OA filed before the Tribunal was barred by limitation besides in
the absence of documents, no relief could have been granted to the
petitioner. We find no infirmity in the order dated 20.03.2014 passed
by the Tribunal and in the order dated 24.07.2014 passed in the
Review Petition. The pay of the petitioner was fixed as far back as in
the year 1987 and subsequent to fixation of pay, the petitioner has
been drawing pension without any protest and at this late stage and
particularly in the absence of availability of authentic documents, the
case of the petitioner cannot be considered for pay fixation of the year
1987. Resultantly, we find no grounds to entertain this petition. The
same is dismissed. No costs.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
DECEMBER 09, 2015/sc
