Union of India and Others vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and Another

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The Union of India and others have filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 28.2.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Act''), whereby Original Application No. 764-PB of 2010 filed by Prem Kumar Gupta (respondent No. 2 herein) has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to re-calculate his emoluments for the purpose of fixation of the retiral benefits, after restoring the increment on the due date, after the expiry of one year of punishment. In this case, respondent No. 2 was working as Postal Assistant in the Department of Posts. He was compulsorily retired with effect from 20.10.2000. Before his retirement, penalty of reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect was imposed upon him on 17.5.1999. The revisional authority modified the said punishment, while ordering reduction of pay by three stages for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The said punishment was to remain effective with effect from 1.6.1999 to 31.5.2000. Though respondent No. 2 was compulsorily retired on 20.10.2000 and effect of the aforesaid punishment had expired much prior to his compulsory retirement, yet while calculating his average emoluments for the purpose of pension, reduction of pay by the aforesaid minor punishment was taken into consideration.

Against the abovesaid illegal calculation of his pension, respondent No. 2 filed a representation, which was rejected by the petitioners. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed the Original Application along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the same, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.2.2012.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the impugned order, we do not find any merit in this writ petition.

Undisputedly, in this case, the minor punishment of reduction of pay by three stages, which was imposed on respondent No. 2 on account of his unauthorised absence, was effective for a period of one year, i.e. from 1.6.1999 to 31.5.2000. Since the punishment was without cumulative effect, the withholding of increment of respondent No. 2 was to be restored after one year. Thus, on the day of his retirement, i.e. 20.10.2000, the increment was deemed to have been restored after the completion of penalty period. The learned Tribunal has held that for the purpose of calculation of average emoluments in order to fix the pension, the withheld increment which was restored after completion of penalty period was to be taken into consideration. The Tribunal, while coming to the said conclusion, has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Naik Bhag Chand v. DG CRPF and others, 2002 (4) SCT 655.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the aforesaid factual and legal position. However, he argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred while condoning the delay and entertaining the Original Application against the order rejecting the representation of respondent No. 2. This contention has no force. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds taken in the application after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, has condoned the delay and allowed the Original Application on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been in a position to assail the order passed by the Tribunal on merits. He is assailing the impugned order only on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has wrongly condoned the delay, though the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to condone the delay has not been disputed. Since the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the facts of the case and the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay, has condoned the delay in filing the Original Application, we do not find any ground to interfere in the said portion of the order, in the writ jurisdiction of this court, particularly in view of the fact that receipt of pension is a recurring cause of action. Thus, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. No merit. Dismissed.