Delhi High Court
Sh. N.K. Madhok vs Union Of India And Ors. on 14 October, 2019
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 14th October, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 10903/2019
SH. N.K. MADHOK ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Rajeshwari H., Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Anjana Gosain, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
C.M.45093/2019 (exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 10903/2019
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 06.12.2018 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal'), by which the prayer made
by the petitioner for grant of interest from 02.10.2004 to 31.03.2015 has
been declined; and pension for the period he had rendered service with
National Airports Authority (NAA) with effect from 02.08.1989 to
30.11.2003 has also been denied.
4. The petitioner herein joined service on 02.04.1976 after qualifying in
the UPSC exam held in the year 1975 and the services of the petitioner
were placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Civil Aviation/Directorate
General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). On 01.06.1986 the National
Airports Authority was created as an autonomous body by an Act of
Parliament and accordingly the operational wings of DGCA
Headquarters were transferred to NAA; consequent whereupon the
petitioner was also transferred to NAA on technical deputation with
effect from 01.06.1986. The petitioner was given ad-hoc promotion by
NAA, now the Airports Authority of India (AAI), on 30.06.1989. The
petitioner was then absorbed on 02.10.1989 as Steno Grade 'B'. Hence
the petitioner was no longer considered a Central Government
employee from 02.10.1989.
5. In the year 1991-1992, the petitioner opted to commute 100% of his
pension for his services rendered in DGCA and was accordingly paid
his dues.
6. On 30.11.1993 the petitioner resigned from services after four years and
two months and was consequently duly discharged from the post of
Senior Personnel and Administration Officer. The petitioner claims that
during his services, either with DGCA or with NAA, he was provided
with free medical facility for himself and his dependent family
members. However, upon his resignation these services were withdrawn
for Government employees who had got their pension commuted, while
employees who did not get their pension commuted continued to be
provided with CGHS facility for free treatment for themselves and their
dependent family members.
7. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in Welfare Association of Absorbed
Central Government Employees in Public Enterprises and Others vs.
Union of India and Another, (1996) 2 SCC 187 passed judgment on
15.12.1995 wherein it was held that absorbed employees are also
entitled to the benefit of restoration of 1/3rd pension after expiry of 15
years from their retirement. Pursuant to the said judgment of the
Supreme Court, an Office Memorandum was issued by the Central
Government on 30.09.1996 whereby benefit of restoration of commuted
pension was made applicable to all those Government employees who
had been absorbed in Public Sector Undertakings/Autonomous or
Statutory Bodies notwithstanding the fact that they had commuted their
full pension earlier-on.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted his representation to the DGCA on
17.11.2014 and his request was forwarded to the Airports Authority of
India on 27.11.2014 as his service record was available with AAI. A
calculation sheet was prepared by AAI for restoration of one-third
pension on 31.12.2014 and DGCA ordered for payment of arrears to the
petitioner on 09.04.2015, which it transpired were incorrect arrears. In
supersession of its earlier order dated 09.04.2015, DGCA directed
payment of corrected arrears of pension vide order dated 16.04.2015.
Arrears having been paid to the petitioner on 20.04.2015, the petitioner
now claims interest for the period of ten-and-a-half years for the delay
in payment of arrears of pension, which was declined by the Tribunal.
Ms.Rajeshwari H., counsel for the petitioner submits that the onus was
on the respondent to grant pension to the petitioner after the judgment
was pronounced by the Supreme Court in the year 1995 and the Office
Memorandum was issued on 30.09.1996.
9. The other grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not
granted pension for services which he rendered at the NAA from
02.10.1989 to 30.11.1993. Counsel for the petitioner relies on a
notification dated 01.08.1988 in respect of her contention regarding ex-
post facto sanction of pension for the period the petitioner served with
the AAI.
10. On the other hand, Ms.Anjana Gosain, counsel for the respondents
relies on the Office Memorandum dated 30.09.1996, more particularly
on Clause 5, and submits that the onus was on the petitioner to apply.
The petitioner applied in the year 2014-2015 and within five months
pension was released to the petitioner; and thus, counsel for the
respondents, no question of payment of interest would arise.
11. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have considered
their rival submissions.
12. The facts which we have narrated hereinabove are not in dispute.
Clause 5 of the Office memorandum reads as under:
"5. All the concerned Central Government absorbees in a
PSU/Autonomous Body etc. shall have to formally apply to
the respective administrative Ministry/Department/Office from
where they had retired and were paid lumpsum commuted
value of pension for the purpose of getting benefit of this
O.M."
13. Reading of clause 5 leaves no room for doubt that for the purpose of
receiving benefit of the O.M. the onus was on the petitioner to formally
apply to the Administrative Ministry/Department/Office from where he
had retired and was paid lumpsum commuted value of pension. Since
undisputed facts show that once the application was made, the amount
of pension due was released to the petitioner within five-and-a-half
months. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the decision taken by the
Tribunal on this issue.
14. As far as the second grievance of the petitioner is concerned, the
Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner resigned from
the NAA on 30.11.1993; and during the period between 2.10.1989 to
30.11.1993 there was no scheme for grant of pension; and further that
the AAI was formed on 01.04.1995 as an autonomous authority under
the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and the pension scheme was
started only from 01.1.2006. Accordingly, notification dated 01.08.1988
does not apply to the facts of the present case. The prayer of the
petitioner for compensation of Rs.20 lakhs towards medical claim has
also been rightly rejected by the Tribunal for the reason that under the
AAI rules medical reimbursement is not available upon resignation.
15. In the above view of the matter, we find no ground to interfere with the
impugned order dated 06.12.2018 passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly,
the writ petition is dismissed.
C.M.45094/2019 (add.documents)
16. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, the application also
stands disposed of.
G.S. SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
OCTOBER 14, 2019
rb
