AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
The applicant is the widow of ex-employee of Railway, namely late Simon Singh, who while working as Head Clerk retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.01.2009 and, thereafter died on 18.06.2015. She has filed this OA inter alia stating that her husband while working in the railway was reverted, which he had challenged before this Tribunal in earlier OA. This Tribunal vide common order dated 21.03.2002 passed in O.A.Nos. 509/2001, 603/2001 and others (A/1), quashed the reversion orders against OA Nos. 509/2001, 603/2001 and directed to treat them as regular PCR staffs of construction organization for all purposes and allow them the consequential relief. The order formed the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in O.J.C. Nos. 5477/2002 and 5459/2002 filed by the respondents. The said OJCs were dismissed vide order dtd. 07.03.2006 (A/2) and the matter was set at rest since no review or SLP was filed by the department. In compliance of the orders referred to above, the respondents-railway issued order No. SPO/Con/Co-ordn/BBS/CC/Implementation/415/03609 dtd. 11.09.2008 (A/3) restoring the husband of the applicant and seven others to the post of Head Clerk in scale of Rs.5000-8000/- (RSRP) purely on adhoc measure w.e.f. 15.10.2001 on notional basis vide office order dated 27.06.2008. As stated above, while the husbnd of the applicant was working as Head Clerk superannuated from service on 31.01.2009 and he was paid all his retirement dues including full and final pension. Thereafter, he expired on 18.06.2015. The applicant (widow of the ex-employee) submitted representation on 31.08.2018 (A/8) praying inter alia release of actual financial benefits instead of notional consequent upon restoration of her husband to his post in compliance of the order of this Tribunal. Thereafter, alleging non-compliance of her representation, she approached this Tribunal in OA No. 68/2019, which was disposed of on 06.08.2019 with direction to respondent railways to consider and dispose of her representation. Respondents railway considered her representation but rejected the same vide speaking order dated 19/20.11.2019 (A/10). Hence, this OA with prayer to quash the order dated 19.11.2019 (A/10) and to direct to the respondents to pay arrears for the period from 15.10.2001 till the date of actual restoration in the post of Head Clerk by extending the benefit of order dtd. 23.03.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 22363/2017.
Respondents filed their counter contesting and objecting the very maintainability of this OA being hit by law of limitation so also on merit and prayed for dismissal of this OA.
The applicant has filed rejoinder inter alia stating reasons as to how the law of limitation has no application and giving justifiability of her claim.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that this Tribunal vide common order dated 21.03.2002 in OA Nos. 509 and 603 of 2001 while quashing the order of reversion had specifically directed to grant the applicant consequential benefits, which was also upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated 07.03.2006. In compliance of the said order, the respondent-railway restored the applicant to his original position vide order dated 11.09.2008 (A/3) but granted him financial benefits notionally, which is bad in law. It is contended that in similar set of employees approached this Tribunal and as against the order of this Tribunal, they had moved before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) Nos. 3198/2002 and other wherein Hon’ble High Court of Orissa also directed for grant of actual financial benefits upon restoration to their original position. The respondents department also granted those applicants the actual financial benefits. Hence, the wife of the ex-employee (applicant herein) submitted representation claiming for actual financial benefits, which having not been allowed, she has approached this Tribunal. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, the approach of the applicant cannot be said to be hit by limitation and the applicant in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) Nos. 3198/2002 and other is entitled to the actual financial benefits of her husband from the date of reversion till the date of restoration. Hence, she has prayed for grant of the relief claimed in the OA.
Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that when the husband of the applicant was satisfied by the order dated 11.09.2008 (A/3), granting him benefits notionally by not making any objection, after his death, the claim made by his widow is not maintainable. It is contended that there was no such direction in the earlier OA for grant of actual financial benefits upon restoration to his original position. This Tribunal had consciously observed that the consequential relief need to be given to the applicants in OA Nos. 509 and 603 of 2001, which by no stretch of imagination can be construed to be a positive direction for grant of financial benefits. Next contention of his argument is that the subsequent orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) Nos. 3198/2002 and other is hardly of any help to the applicant to get the benefit because any direction for grant of actual financial benefits would tantamount to sitting over the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in OJC Nos. 5477 and 5459 of 2002 filed against the common order of the Tribunal dated 21.03.2002 in OA Nos. 509 and 603 of 2001 and that, the applicant has also in this OA not challenged the order dated 11.09.2008 (A/3) wherein the financial benefits was allowed to her husband (ex-employee) on notional basis. Thus, this OA filed on 20.01.2020 is hit by law of limitation, hence, on both counts, this OA is liable to be dismissed.
After giving in-depth consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties concerned, we have perused the records. We are, in the peculiar facts and circumstances above, not convinced that this case is hit by law of limitation as raised by the respondents in view of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 16851/2020 in the case of Surendra Behera Vs UOI & Ors, relevant portion of the order is extracted herein below:
“…..Release of consequential service benefits arising out of the self same/common order of the Tribunal dated 21.03.2002 in favour of certain persons and denial of the same in respect of the petitioners, is nothing but mere discrimination and harassment, in the guise of delay approach, which at all not to be attributed to the petitioners.
xxx xxx xxx
Be that, as it may, to our opinion, the Tribunal should not have dealt with the question of delay, had the Tribunal gone into the root of the dispute, wherein the self same Tribunal had directed for extension of consequential benefits to all the applicants of the Original Applications, including the petitioners and the same has been affirmed by this Court. However, due to the misconception order dated 26.06.2008 of the Railways, which has been interfered with by this Court in the earlier writ petitions, the dispute continued till 23.03.2018 and the benefits are not extended. Thus, if at all there is any delay in execution of the order of the Tribunal, the same cannot be attributed to the petitioners.
Admittedly the petitioners are the senior citizens and have retired long since. The authorities should not have forced them to be dragged into unnecessary litigations again and again, since the dispute has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal as well as by this Court. 14. The aforesaid discussions/observations/ analysis, therefore, lead us to hold that the impugned order dated 06.05.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 189 of 2019 & M.A. No. 248 of 2019, O.A. No. 195 of 2019 & M.A. No. 259 of 2019 and O.A. No. 334 of 2019 & M.A. No. 403 of 2019, is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly the same is quashed. The opposite party-Railways are directed to extend all the financial benefits/differential arrear salary in favour of the petitioners in terms of the direction given in earlier Writ Petitions, within a period of two months hence.”
The applicant is the widow of one of such ex-railway employee like the petitioners Sri Surendra Behera and another, who has been deprived of the actual financial benefits. Hence, the objection raised by the respondent-railways that the OA is barred by law of limitation is hereby overruled.
Insofar as merit of the matter is concerned, it is seen that the direction of the Tribunal in the common order dated 21.03.2002 in OA Nos. 509 and 603 of 2001 was as under:
“As a consequence, the reversion orders passed against the applicants in OA Nos. 509/2001 and 603/2001 (and against the oither similarly placed applicants) are hereby set aside and they are to be treate3d as regular ‘PCR’ staffs of Construction Organization for all purposes and consequential relief need be given to them within a period of three months hence.”
The respondents challenged the said common order dated 21.03.2002 in OA Nos. 509 and 603 of 2001 before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in OJC Nos. 5477 and 5459 of 2002 and the Hon’ble High Court in a well reasoned order dismissed the same vide order dated 07.03.2006 thereby upholding the order of this Tribunal.
Undisputedly, eight employees, including the husband of the applicant, were allowed the financial benefits notionally upon restoration to their original post and position in compliance of the order of this Tribunal upheld by the Hon’ble High Curt of Orissa vide order dated 11.09.2008 (A/3). Out of eight employees, two of them namely Chintamani Mohanty and Dasharathi Sahoo prayed before the authority concerned for grant of actual benefits, which were not acceded to. Thereafter, they approached this Tribunal, which was dismissed. The said order of dismissal was challenged by them before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 22363/2017 wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa directed the opposite party-railways to extend the actual financial benefits in their favour. Another, two employees namely Surendra Behera and Arikhita Das, after being unsuccessful to remedy their grievance at the hands of the authority concerned, approached this Tribunal, which was dismissed. They took the matter to Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 16851/2020 and the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, by placing reliance on the order dated 07.03.2006 in OJC No. 5477 and 5459 of 2002 quashed the order of dismissal of their OA by this Tribunal and directed to extend them the financial benefits/differential arrear salaries.
In the circumstances stated above, the case of the husband of the applicant is squarely covered by the aforesaid two decisions and he ought to have been paid the actual financial benefits/differential arrear salary instead of notional. Since, the same was not paid to the husband of the applicant and by the time her husband expired, the applicant has rightly agitated her grievance before the authorities but as it established the authorities concerned without taking into consideration the facts noted above and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 22363/2017 dated 28.03.2018, which is also reiterated in W.P.(C) No. 16851/2020 disposed of on 18.11.2020, rejected the claim illegally and arbitrarily, so to say, in an unreasoned order. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the order of rejection dated 19/20.11.2019 (A/10) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, the said order dated 19/20.11.2019 (A/10), is hereby quashed.
Sequel to the quashing of the order of rejection dated 19/20.11.2019 (A/10, this OA is allowed with direction to the respondents to grant the applicant, the actual financial benefits for the period her husband was granted notionally vide order dated 11.09.2008 (A/3) and pay the applicant the differential arrear salary of her husband for the period in question in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in OJC Nos. 5477 and 5459 of 2002 dated 07.03.2006 and in W.P.(C) No. 22363/2017 dated 28.03.2018 within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.