AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Shakdher, J
CM APPL. 7670/2022
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 2681/2022 & CM APPL. 7669/2022[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.09.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short, “the Tribunalâ€] in O.A.
No.2058/2021.
2.1. The record shows that respondent no.1 had approached the Tribunal with the grievance that she was not being paid her retiral benefits.
It is not disputed before us by the counsel for the parties that respondent no. 1, in another matter i.e., W.P.(C.) 9554/2018, is agitating that her age
of superannuation ought to be 65 years and not 60 years.
3.1. Briefly, respondent no.1 in the aforesaid writ petition is claiming parity with the age of superannuation provided for General Duty Medical
Officers and Specialists in Central Government and its allied medical care institutions. In this context, respondent no.1, it appears, seeks to rely upon
the decision of the Government of India dated 31.05.2016.
3.2. The aforesaid writ petition, we are told, is pending adjudication before this Court.
Notwithstanding the above, in the usual course, even according to the petitioner, respondent no.1 would have retired on 31.01.2018.
4.1. It appears that because respondent no.1 has preferred the aforementioned writ petition i.e., W.P.(C.) 9554/2018, her retiral benefits are not
released leaving her bereft of necessary financial resources.
4.2. It may be relevant to note that an interim order dated 12.09.2018, was passed by the coordinate bench in W.P. (C.) No.9554/2018. Via this order,
in effect, a direction was issued for continuation of respondent no.1 in service, albeit, without remuneration.
4.3. However, an application for recall of this order [i.e. order dated 12.09.2018] was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed via order dated
23.01.2020.
4.4 We may note that both the orders [i.e., orders dated 12.09.2018 and 23.01.2020, passed in W.P.(C) No.9554/2018] were set aside by the Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No.2476-78/2020, via order dated 01.06.2020.
The Tribunal has considered the aforementioned aspects and after doing so, passed the following operative directions:
We are convinced that the Writ Petition, pending in the Hon'ble High Court, is for different cause of action, i.e., enhancement of age of
retirement from 60 years to 65. However, it is evident from the record that the applicant superannuated on 31.01.2018 and at that time, no
disciplinary or judicial proceedings were pending against the applicant. This fact has also not been refuted by learned counsel for
respondents. The applicant herein is suffering financially due to non-release of her pension and other retiral dues, despite being in service
for almost about 35 years. Therefore, at least the retiral dues of the applicant up to her date of superannuation, i.e., 31.01.2018 should be
released by the respondents, so as to enable her to sustain her livelihood and day to day affairs. The pension is not a bounty payable on the
sweet will and the pleasure of the Government, but the right to receive the same. It is property under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of
India and the State cannot withhold it. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that at least the retiral dues of the applicant up to her
date of superannuation, i.e., 31.01.2018, should be released by the respondents in a time bound manner.
10, In view of the above, the present 0.A. is disposed of by directing the respondents to release the retiral dues of the applicant up to her
date of superannuation i.e., 31.01.2018, as no disciplinary or judicial proceedings were pending against the applicant, within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that the question of payment of wages due to the applicant from
22.01.2018 to 12.06.2020 shall be decided in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the pending Writ Petition No. 9554/2018.
There shall be no order as to costs.â€
Mr Kumar Onkareshwar, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the petitioner envisages difficulty in releasing respondent no.1’s
retiral dues, in view of the pendency of W.P.(C.) No.9554/2018.
6.1. In our opinion, there should be no difficulty in the petitioner releasing retiral dues of respondent no.1, since it is the petitioner's own case that
respondent no.1 superannuated on 31.01.2018. Given this position, respondent no.1's circumstances cannot be worse than that which obtained on
31.01.2018.
6.2. In case, respondent no.1 succeeds in the pending writ petition i.e., W.P. (C.) No.9554/2018, necessary adjustments can be made at that time.
We find no merit in the writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, pending application shall also stand closed.