Rajinder Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

The applicant retired as ALO (Construction) from Northern Railway on 31.12.1995. The 5th Central Pay Commission was announced vide Government of India O.M dated 27.10.1997 and the cut off date was 01.01.1996. The applicant gave a representation dated 04.10.2004 that he should be deemed to be retired from service on 01.01.1996 and paid the pensionary benefits accordingly (an incomplete representation has been placed on file which runs till prayer no. 8 and does not have the signatures of the applicant). The applicant gave a reminder on 10.01.2006 which was rejected vide respondents letter dated 30.01.2006 stating that the applicant retired on 31.12.1995 and pensionary benefits were paid to the applicant on that basis. Thereafter, in 2017, the applicant gave other representation at various levels and then to the Public Grievance Cell of PMO on 13.04.2019. On 24.04.2019 office of respondents no. 2 once again informed the applicant that there are no instructions to give him the benefit of having retired on 01.01.1996.

The applicant has contended that as per certain Court rulings, he should be deemed to have retired on 01.01.1996. He has also prayed that the respondents should treat the date of retirement as 01.01.1996 and give him benefit of the 5th, 6th, and 7th Pay Commissions along with arrears, interest etc.

Respondents have strongly denied the claim of the applicant. They have stated that this application is time barred and no application for Condonation of Delay has also been given.The claim was rejected on 31.01.2006. 13 years have passed since then and several Pay Commissions have come since date of retirement of the applicant and therefore, no case is made out for giving benefit of all these to him. They have reiterated that the applicant retired on 31.12.1995 which was before cut off date of 01.01.1996 for the 5th Pay Commission. They have also argued that there is no question of entertaining any request for getting benefits under the 6th and 7th Pay Commissions since he has retired before even the 5th Pay Commission's cut off date.

Heard Ms. Manpreet Kaur, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. S. M. Arif, learned counsel for respondents.

The applicant has relied on the ruling in the case of Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Banerjee Vs. Union of India and Ors. pronounced on 24.10.1989. In the cited case the applicant had sought voluntary retirement under the provisions of Rule 48 A of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and was permitted to retire voluntarily from the Forenoon of January 1st, 1986. In case of the present O.A, the applicant retired on 31st December, 1995 and not on 1st January. Thus, this case is clearly distinguished from the cited case.

The applicant has also relied in O.A No. 571/2017 in G. C. Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors. pronounced on 17.04.2018, wherein the applicant had been treated as superannuated on 01.01.2016. However, once again this case is different, since date of birth of the applicant was 1st January (01.01.1956 in this case). Therefore, he was given the benefit of the Hon'ble Apex Court ruling in the case of S. Banerjee (supra). In the present case, the applicant's date of birth is 31st December. Therefore, the case is clearly distinguishable.

After carefully considering the facts of the case, I am of the view that the applicant's case is hopelessly time barred since his claim pertains to the year 1996 and he gave the first representation itself only in 2004. Even after his rejection he did not file any O.A and as per his own contention more than 13 years elapsed.

Even considering on merits, I have perused the materials available on record and the pleadings of both the learned counsels. FR 56 of the Fundamental Rules clearly states that every government servant retires from service on the afternoon of the last date of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years. In the case of the applicant, he superannuated on 31st December and therefore, that is clearly to be treated as his date of retirement.

Accordingly, the O.A has no merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs.