Delhi High Court
Rajinder Tiku vs Pragati Power Corporation ... on 6 September, 2018
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision : 6th September, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 11144/2015 & CM No.28945/2015
RAJINDER TIKU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Gaurav Kohli, Mr. Sandeep Kumar and
Ms. Gayatri Misra, Advs.
versus
PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION
LIMITED & ANR ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
% JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks retiral benefits, as Executive Director
(Technical) of Respondent No.1-Corporation, w.e.f. 1st May, 2011, as
he superannuated on the said date.
2. The impugned communication, dated 14th May, 2015, instead,
computes his retiral benefits from 1st May, 2010.
3. The facts are not in dispute.
4. The petitioner, who was working as General Manager
(Technical) with Respondent No.1, was due to superannuate on 30th
April, 2010. The Board of Directors of Respondent No.1, however,
approved the case of the petitioner for re-designating as Executive
Director (Technical) and for extension of his service by one year w.e.f.
1st May, 2010. This was initially granted, vide Office Order dated 26th
March, 2010, which read thus:
"Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited
HR Branch
No. DH(HR)H/2010/174 Dt.26.03.2010
OFFICE ORDER
The Board of Directors, IPGCL, vide item No.47.4.4 dated
26.03.2010, has accorded approval to the re-designation of
Shri Rajinder Tiku, General Manager (Tech), as Executive
Director (Technical) with immediate effect and extension of
his service for a period of one year with effect from 01st May,
2010 beyond his normal superannuation age from IPGCL.
(Pranab Kumar Ray)
General Manager (HR)"
(Emphasis supplied)
5. The above order, dated 26th March, 2010 was, however,
amended by subsequent Office Order dated 5th May, 2010, which read
thus:
" OFFICE ORDER
FOR AS
Re-designation of Re-designation of Shri
Shri Rajinder Tiku, Rajinder Tiku, General
General Manager Manager (In-charge)-
(Tech) as Executive Projects & Civil as
Director (Technical) Executive Director
with immediate effect (Technical) with immediate
and extension of his effect and extension of his
service for a period of period of service for a period
one year with effect of one year w.e.f. 1st May,
from 01st May, 2010. 2010, beyond his normal
superannuation age of 60
years in the Company. He
will continue to receive
remuneration based on the
pay-benefits and allowances
drawn by his at the time of
his normal superannuation
date along with the due
increment, during the
extended period of service.
The other contents of the aforesaid office order shall
remain, uncharged.
This issues with the approval of the competent
authority.
(B.B. SHARMA)
DM(HR) I"
(Emphasis supplied)
6. It is clear, from a reading of two aforementioned office orders,
dated 26th March, 2010 and 5th May, 2010, in juxtaposition, that the
said orders expressly stipulated that (i) the petitioner was re-
designated as Executive Director (Technical) with immediate effect,
(ii) the period of his service was extended for one year w.e.f. 1st May,
2010 beyond his normal age of superannuation and (iii) he would
continue to receive remuneration based on pay benefits and
allowances drawn by him at the time of his normal date of
superannuation, along with due increments during his extended period
of service.
7. It is manifest, from the above office orders, that the petitioner's
service was, by executive fiat, extended till 30th April, 2011, and that
he was given all remunerations which he would have drawn, had he
superannuated, in due course, on 30th April 2011.
8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Pension Payment
Order which came to be issued, consequent on the petitioner's
superannuation on 30th April, 2011, showed his date of retirement as
30th April, 2010, instead of 30th April, 2011, and computed his retiral
benefits accordingly.
9. Accordingly, the petitioner's retiral benefits were also
calculated on the basis of basic pay drawn by him on 30 th April, 2010,
rather than the basic pay drawn by him on 30th April, 2011, which,
needless to say, was higher.
10. The petitioner represented to the respondents. However, the
petitioner's representation stood rejected by the impugned
communication, dated 14th May, 2015, issued by the Deputy Manager
in the office of Respondent No.1, which read thus:
"No. DM (HR)H/2015-16/38 Dt.14.05.2015
Shri Rajinder Tiku
Ex. Executive Director (Tech) IPGCL
D-36, Pamposh Enclave,
Greater Kailash-I,
New Delhi.
Sub: Fixation of Pension and Payment of Retiral Benefits.
Sir,
Please refer to your correspondence on the above cited
subject, regarding Fixation of your pension. In this regard the
reply is as under:-
1] Reference on the above subject, your case was sent to
Department of Power, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for clarification
regard the date from which your retirement benefits became
due i.e. 01.05.2010 or 01.05.2011.
2] In response, Dy. Secretary (Power), Department of
Power, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has conveyed that the
extension of service can be granted to certain categories of
Govt. of Servant Only under FR 56 (d).
3] In the same letter Dy. Secretary (Power) further
conveyed that the extension of your service seems to be
against the policy of the Govt.
In view of the above it is to inform you that the
decision of Pension Trust to release your pensionary benefits
w.e.f. 01.05.2010 seems to be appropriate.
This is for favour of your kind information please.
Yours sincerely,
Sampan Padhi
Deputy Manager-V."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. In my view, the entire issue is a no brainer. Once the Office
Order extending the service of the petitioner clearly stated that his
service was extended for one year and that, during the said period, he
would continue to receive remuneration based on pay benefits and
allowances drawn by him at the time of his normal superannuation
date, along with increments due for the months during the extended
period of his service, there could be no question of treating his date of
superannuation, for the purpose of pensionary benefits, as 30th April,
2010. The petitioner could either have retired on 30th April, 2010, or
had his service extended till 30th April, 2011. This is no half-way
house.
12. The reliance, by Respondent No.1, on FR-56 (d), is completely
misplaced, as FR-56 (d) does not deal with retiral benefits at all, but
prohibits grant of extension of service to a government servant beyond
the age of sixty years.
13. It is too late in the day for the Respondents, today, to invoke the
FR-56(d). Having, on their own will and volition, extended the
petitioner's service till 30th April, 2011, and extracted work from him
for the said extra period of one year the inevitable sequitur thereto has
necessarily to follow.
14. For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the decision of
the respondents, to compute the retiral benefits of petitioner, by
treating his date of retirement as 30th April, 2010, cannot sustain,
either in law or on facts, and has, therefore, to be set aside.
15. The date of retirement of petitioner, therefore, shall be treated
as 30th April, 2011. The petitioner shall therefore be treated as having
worked till 30th April, 2011 and his retiral benefits shall stand
computed from 1st May, 2011 instead of 1st May, 2010.
16. Needless to say, all his retiral benefits would be computed on
the basis of the pay-scale being drawn by him at the time of his actual
retirement on 30th April, 2011.
17. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms with no order as
to costs.
18. Learned counsel for petitioner submits, at the Bar, that the
implementation of this order has to be effected by the Delhi Vidyut
Board Pension Trust.
19. Accordingly, let a copy of this judgment be served by the
petitioner on the Delhi Vidyut Board Pension Trust to ensure
compliance.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
SEPTEMBER 06, 2018
bh/dsn
