Balbir Singh vs Union Of India & Others

Aradhana Johri, Member (A)

Issue notice.

Mr. Sanjeev Yadav, learned counsel appears for respondent no. 1 and Mr. R. Gowrishankar for Mr. S. Rajappa appears for respondent no. 2 on

advance notice and receives notice.

The applicant is a senior citizen, 75 years of age who retired from the services of respondent no. 2 i.e., Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as Group

‘D’ Peon on 30.06.2004. He had filed an earlier O.A No. 2689/2017 pertaining to grant of ACP as well as revision of pension. On 08.12.2018

the following order was passed in the said OA.

“3. The respondents pleaded that ACP benefits were to be given as per terms and conditions specified under those policy/directives. In

the instant case, the applicant was issued promotion order to the post of Lab Attendant, which he refused to carry out and hence ACP was

denied to him.

In the hearing on 26.11.2018, the respondents were directed to produce the original service record in respect of the applicant regarding

averments in para 3 above. The same has been produced today. It is seen from the order issued on 10.12.2013 that the applicant was

offered promotion to the post of Lab Attendant twice under their office order dated 15.03.1999 and again on 07.12.2000 but he did not join

the said promotional post. Accordingly, he was debarred for promotion vide Office Memo dated 12.01.2001.

5.0 In the instant OA, the applicant has pleaded for grant of two ACPs benefits and fixation of pension thereafter. Subsequent to retirement,

the applicant had earlier approached the Tribunal in OA No.2310/2004 wherein directions were issued on 10.10.2005 granting him two

ACPs benefits. However, the respondents’ counsel brought out that these orders were subsequently challenged in Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi (WP (C) No.10558/2006) who reduced it to one ACP benefit. It was also challenged subsequently in Hon’ble Apex Court.

This SLP in Hon’ble Supreme Court stood dismissed. Thus, the order of Hon’ble High Court attained finality.

This one ACP benefit has already been granted to the applicant. From the service record, it comes out that the applicant was in the scale

Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200 as on 01.01.1991 and this was increased to Rs.2610-60-2910-65-3300-70-4000 w.e.f. 12.10.2000 as first ACP

benefit and subsequently the applicant retired from service on 30.06.2004.

It is the view of this Tribunal that in view of the refusal of promotion and subsequent High Court orders, no more ACP benefits are

admissible in the instant case.

The applicant had also pleaded for correct fixation of pension as per 6th CPC recommendations, which came into force from 01.01.2006.

It is noted that 7th CPC recommendations have also come into force now w.e.f 01.01.2016, and respondents have also issued instructions to

this effect.

In view of the forgoing, the respondents are directed to revise the pension of the applicant as per extant rules and instructions within a

period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if not done so far. In any case, the details of revision of

pension of the applicant, shall be given to the applicant for his information, within this time limit.

Accordingly, the OA stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. The applicant has liberty to pursue his remedies, once he

receives the details of revision of pension as per para 7 supra and there is any subsisting grievance.

Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed off accordingly.â€​

Though in the present O.A the applicant has not specifically mentioned that he has not got the revised pension but orally Shri Pratap Ch Mishra,

learned counsel for applicant stated that the revised pension has not yet been given.

The relief sought is as follows :-

“i) Direct the respondent to grant an oral hearing to apprise his grievances.

ii) To review all the previous orders and deal to his representation dated 27.2.2020 and pass appropriate order.

iii) or any other order or directions as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed.â€​

When this Tribunal has already passed an order directing the respondents to revise the pension as per the instant rules and instructions within a

period of 8 weeks, and if the respondents have not done so then relief does not lie in filing any other OA on the same point but seeking other legal

remedies.

Further, the relief claimed for reviewing all previous orders dealt with in the representation dated 27.02.2020, in the absence of any specific order

being mentioned, cannot be granted by this Court since it is non-specific.

The said representation filed by the applicant dated 27.02.2020 pertains to the pensionary benefits as per 6th and 7th Pay Commissions which has

already been dealt with in OA No. 2689/2017. Another matter which is mentioned in the said representation pertains to not being given medical

reimbursement for heart treatment at G. B. Pant Hospital. Learned counsel for applicant informed that the applicant has filed a separate O.A on this

issue, which is pending. Therefore, this relief cannot be granted through the present O.A.

In light of the above, this O.A is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs.