Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Nain Singh on 30 November, 2023
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 30th November, 2023
+ W.P.(C) 15390/2023 & CM APPL. 61737/2023 and
CM APPL. 61738/2023
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with
Ms. Pinky Pawar and Mr. Aakash
Pathak, Advs.
versus
NAIN SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. V.K. Goel, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 15390/2023
1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated October 27,
2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 334/2017,
whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondent
herein by stating in paragraph 7 as under:
"7. Since the Hon'ble Apex Court has already held that
pension is not a bounty which can be withheld by the
respondents, this O.A. deserves to be allowed as the plea
taken by the respondents that no record of the employment of
By:ANIL KUMAR W.P.(C) 15390/2023 Page 1
the applicant is available before them cannot be considered,
as this is not the duty of the applicant to take care of the
same. Hence, the O.A. is disposed of with a direction the
applicant to produce before the respondents whatsoever
documents are available with him, for getting his pensionary
benefits. Thereafter, the respondents shall make the payment
of the pensionary benefits along with the interest @ 6°/o,
within a period of 90 days, of course from 3 years preceding
from the date of filing of this O.A. in light of the aforesaid
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court."
2. The claim of the respondent before the Tribunal was with
regard to payment of his pensionary benefits including gratuity,
provident fund (PF) and pension after attaining the age of
superannuation.
3. The facts as noted from the record are that the respondent had
joined the petitioner Northern Railway on October 25, 1963. He was
posted as Booking Clerk at Bhatinda Railway Station in the year
1982. On June 8, 1986, a robbery took place and an FIR was lodged
against him at Bhatinda itself. Finally he was acquitted in the said
case by the Criminal Court on February 14, 1995.
4. It was the case of the respondent that on attaining the age of
superannuation on January 7, 2001 no pensionary benefits were
granted to him. It was also his case that he made a representation to
the petitioners and also sought information under the RTI Act. As he
was not granted pensionary benefits, he had no alternative but to
approach the Tribunal for the relief of pensionary benefits which have
been granted to him.
By:ANIL KUMAR W.P.(C) 15390/2023 Page 2
5. The impugned order is contested by the petitioners on the
ground that the necessary record is not available and it is difficult to
ascertain as to whether the respondent in fact would have continued in
service till the date of his superannuation in January, 2001.
6. That apart, the fact is, having been acquitted in the year 1995,
the respondent had not approached the Court seeking reinstatement,
except the so-called representations said to have been made.
According to the counsel for the petitioners, after acquittal, the
respondent should have approached the Department and sought his
reinstatement and the pensionary benefits on the date of retirement.
Further, nothing has been placed on record by the respondent to show
that he was not dismissed or terminated from the services of the
petitioners.
7. However, on a specific query by this Court, the counsel do not
deny that the respondent was an employee of the petitioners. If that
be so, inference must be drawn that the relationship existed between
the respondent and the petitioners.
8. The Tribunal rightly proceeded on the premise that the
respondent was an employee of petitioners. Considering the fact that
no action was taken by the petitioners terminating the services of the
respondent, at least nothing has been placed on record and he had
attained the age of superannuation, the Tribunal has rightly granted
the pensionary benefits. The plea that the record is not available with
the petitioners is no ground to deny the benefits. More so, non-
availability of record is the making of the petitioners for which
By:ANIL KUMAR W.P.(C) 15390/2023 Page 3
the respondent cannot be put to any disadvantage/prejudice. In view
of the above, no interference is called for with the impugned order.
9. The petition is dismissed.
10. The petitioners are granted three months time to comply with
the order.
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 30, 2023/jg
By:ANIL KUMAR W.P.(C) 15390/2023 Page 4
