ORDER
P. Lakshmana Reddy, J. (Vice-Chairman)
1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. J.M. Naidu for the Applicant and the learned Standing Counsel Mr. N.R. Devaraj for the Respondents.
2. This application is filed seeking for a declaration that the action of the 3rd respondent in denying retirement benefits of Rs. 52,058/- towards DCRG, Commutation of Pension, Group Insurance, Leave Salary and not releasing the pension as per Vth Pay Commission Rules, vide proceedings No. PA/DE/PF/HD, dated 16.10.2002, basing on the first respondent’s Board letter No. E(G)97-RT1-1, dated 7.7.1999, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and for consequential direction to the respondents to release all the monetary benefits like DCRG, Group Insurance, Leave Encashment including the Vth Pay Commission benefits, and pass such other or further orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows:
The applicant’s real date of birth is 15.2.1934. He was appointed as Khalasi on 2.2.1962. The age of superannuation is 58. As per his correct date of birth, the applicant ought to have been retired on 29.2.1992, but he continued in the post till 10.12.1996. Thereafter, in October, 1996, it was detected that his date of birth was wrongly altered from 15.2.1934 to 15.2.1939 and on 10.12.1996, he was made to retire from service. Thereafter, the respondents started to recover the amount of pay paid for the period between 29.2.1992 to 10.12.1996, as the applicant was irregularly continued in service knowing fully well that he attained the date of superannuation on 29.2.1992. At that stage, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1452 of 2001. This Tribunal disposed of the said OA on 12.8.2002. In that OA, the present applicant contended that it was only due to administrative lapses, he was continued in service till 10.12.1996 and there was no fault on his part and that he is entitled for the salary for the work done, and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to recover the salary.
4. The respondents contested the application by filing reply statement. They have relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Radha Kishun v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1997 (2) AISLJ page 130, wherein the Apex Court held that one who continues in the service beyond superannuation by mistake is not entitled to any payment. Therefore, the respondents contended that the applicant is not entitled for payment of salary for that period as his service was irregular and that the Railway administration is entitled to recover the amounts paid by way of salary during that period. This Tribunal, vide its order dated 12.8.2002, passed in O.A. No. 1452/2001, accepted the contention of the respondents in view of the decision of the Apex Court and directed the respondents to settle the dues for the applicant by passing a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the Order. As the respondents did not settle the dues and did not comply the Order of this Tribunal, the applicant filed the present OA on 16.10.2003. This Tribunal on 19.12.2003, passed an interim order directing the respondents to finalize the issue on the revision of pension, as per Vth CPC, as mentioned in the respondents’ impugned letter dated 16.10.2002 and advised the Bankers accordingly within three weeks, and shall mention in the counter-reply about the compliance of the interim order. The respondents took time for implementation of the said interim order. On 6.2.2004, this Tribunal passed another interim order observing that earlier the respondents were directed to file reply by 19.12.2003 and the Counsel for the Respondents requested two months time for finalization of the issue. Therefore, on 6.4.2004, the respondents filed reply along with the copy of the final order. The said final order No. AC/PA/Settlement/HD, dated 12.3.2004 addressed to the Manager, Corporation Bank, 8-7517, Main Road, Dist. Krishna-509 352, near Raichur, Makthal Taluk, Mehboobnagar., Andhra Pradesh, reads as follows:
Sub : Revision of Pension & Recovery of Overpay from DA Relief on Pension.
Ref : Central Railway PPO No. CR/10707/154629,
dated 13.11.96
* * *
With reference to the PPO mentioned above, you are requested to revise the pension as per the Revised Pension Payment Authority attached in f/o Shri Hanumantappa, Deokaran. The revision of pension is effective from 11.12.1996, but as some Railway dues (overpayment) are pending against the pensioner. Hence, the same are being recovered from the arrears of pension from 11.12.1996 to 29.2.2004.
Pension arrears - Rs. 77,789-00
+ Unpaid DCRG - Rs. 20,798-00
+ Unpaid NGIS - Rs. 3,402-00
--------------------
Rs. 1,01,989-00
- Overpayment - Rs. 1,23,082-00
--------------------
(-) 21,093-00
Hence, you are requested to recover an amount of Rs. 21,093/- from DA relief on pension and send the credit to FA and CAO (Pension), Central Railway CSTM. The revised pension may be disbursed after necessary recovery from DA relief with effect from 01-03-2004 as per the Revisied Pension Payment Authority.
The respondents have also filed along with the reply the copy of the letter dated 12.3.2004 addressed to the Manager, Corporation Bank, Main Road, District Krishna-509 352, Near Raichur, Makthal Taluk, Mehboobnagar, to arrange to credit amount due on account of the revised pension.
5. As seen from the above said orders, it is clear that a speaking order has been passed as directed by this Tribunal and also in compliance with the Tribunal’s Orders earlier passed in earlier O.A. No. 1452 of 2001. But the learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the copy of the revised pension order has not been supplied to the applicant, and therefore, the applicant is unable to draw the revised pension. He further submitted that the entire amount received by him from 29.2.1992 till 10.12.1996, has been treated as arrears though he is entitled for the pension amount and that the said pension amount has not been paid. But, as seen from the said orders dated 12.3.2004, we are unable to conclusively decide whether the contention of the applicant, in this OA, is tenable. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to give an opportunity to the applicant to make a representation to the respondents, if there is any error in calculation of the amounts due to him. But, so far as the contention of the applicant that he is entitled for salary for the period he worked has already been negatived by this Tribunal in the earlier OA.
6. We have gone through the above cited case and also the Railway Board’s letter dated 7.7.1999. In para 4 of the said letter, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure.6, it is seen that the said orders shall take effect from the date of issue and that all the cases of erroneous retention, which have not yet been decided, will be decided in terms of these orders. Admittedly, this case is of erroneous retention and was not decided by the date of issue of this letter dated 7.7.1999. Therefore, the applicant’s retiral benefits have to be settled only in pursuance of these orders dated 7.7.1999, which has been issued in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the above cited case viz., Radha Kishun v. Union of India and Ors. and as per these orders, the respondents are entitled to recover the pay and allowances etc.,. paid to the employee during the erroneous retention period. Therefore, we find no force in the said contention of the applicant. As the respondents have passed speaking orders subsequent to the filing of this OA, in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Tribunal, we find no further orders to be passed in this OA. However, the applicant is given liberty to make a representation, if there are any mistakes while calculating the amounts due to him. The applicant is also permitted to take the copy of the revised pension order from this Tribunal.
7. With these observations, the OA is disposed of. There shall, however, be no Order as to costs.