w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Nikhil Ranjan Bhattacharjee v/s The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- DELHI BROADCASTING COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92132KA2004PLC034924

Company & Directors' Information:- J S BROADCASTING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64200DL2011PTC219384

Company & Directors' Information:- C R BROADCASTING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92120TG2012PLC083106

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INFORMATION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300MH1999PTC118630

Company & Directors' Information:- NIKHIL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27320DL1997PTC090036

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- G BROADCASTING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92100CH2015PTC035860

Company & Directors' Information:- A B S BROADCASTING LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92110PB2002PLC025115

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND J BROADCASTING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92132TN2006PTC060437

Company & Directors' Information:- A BHATTACHARJEE & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U26931WB1960PTC024683

Company & Directors' Information:- RANJAN PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1936PTC008688

    Original Application No. 040/00389 of 2018

    Decided On, 28 November 2018

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. MANJULA DAS
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. NEKKHOMANG NEIHSIAL
    By, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

    For the Applicant: D.C. Chakraborty, Advocate. For the Respondents: ----



Judgment Text


Oral Order:

Manjula Das, Judicial Member.

1. By this OA, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the applicant seeks following relief(s) :-

“(a) To set aside and quash the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents in deducting, an amount of Rs.2,77,795.00 from the gratuity payable to him as per the aforesaid PPO dated 24.02.2017 and to direct the respondents’ to make payment of the same in full to the applicant with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 01.01.2018.

(b) to direct the respondents to recalculate the amount of gratuity payable to the applicant by taking into account the enhancement of Dearness Allowances from 2% to 4% w.e.f. 01.01.2017 as per Office Memorandum dated 30.07.2017 and to make payment of the enhanced amount of gratuity to him with interest thereon as per law.

(c) To grant interest @ 125 per annum on the total amount of gratuity payable to the applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2018 till the date of actual payment thereof.

(d) To grant any other relief or reliefs to which the applicant may be entitled os per law.

(e) To pay cost to the applicant.”

2. The facts in brief are that applicant retired from service as Senior Engineering Assistant from the office of the Additional Director General (El, All India Radio and Doordarshan, NEZ, Guwahati w.e.f 01.03.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation. Since then he has been paid regular pension. According to the applicant though vide the PPO No.2887517000530 dated 24.02.2017, he was entitled to payment of retirement gratuity amount of Rs.12,87,495/-, he was paid Rs.10,09,700/- only on 29.10.2018 thus, an amount of Rs.2,77,795/- was illegally deducted from his retirement gratuity without issuing any notice. Applicant’s another contention is that the said gratuity amount was calculated on the basis of salary payable to him on 28.02.2017 including the Dearness Allowances payable to him, however, subsequently the Dearness Allowance had been enhanced from existing rate of Rs.2% to 4% w.e.f. 01.01.2017 vide OM dated 30.03.2017, thus the amount of retirement gratuity is also liable to be enhanced from earlier RS.12,87,495/- and be paid to him accordingly.

3. Applicant contended that during his service he stayed in office quarter No.2/C-10, Type III in Guwahati and had to stay in the quarter even after his retirement. However, before retirement he submitted an application on 27.02.2018 praying for permission to retention of the quarter for one year on the ground of his illness as well as for completion of study of his daughter. He submitted another representation on 27.03.2017 in that regard. According to the applicant, he had no option but to stay in the said quarter till 28.02.2018, however, key of the quarter was handed over to the Care Taker 11.04.2018. According to the applicant, after his retirement from 01.03.2017 to 28.02.2018, he was paying the necessary charges to the respondent no.4 on regular basis. Relying on Rule 72 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which provides for adjustment and recovery of dues pertaining to Government accommodation applicant contends that there is no outstanding arrears of license fee due to Government as such recovery of Rs.2,77,795/- from the retirement gratuity is unjustified.

4. Mr.D.C.Chakraborty, learned counsel argued on behalf of the applicant. On query to as whether formal order permitting the applicant to retain the quarter after retirement, learned counsel submitted that applicant had made representations for retention but no formal order was issued in favour of him, but he stayed in the quarter till 28.02.2018 on payment of necessary charges without any objection from any quarters. According to the learned counsel, recovery of Rs.2,77,795/- from his retirement gratuity towards retention of quarter after retirement from 01.03.2017 to 28.02.2018 is totally exorbitant and no calculation details has been provided to the applicant.

5. Be that as it may, facts remains that the applicant stayed in the official quarter after his retirement till the date he vacated the quarter and admittedly no formal permission order of retention in favour of the applicant was issued. The applicant has not approached the authorities against the recovery of Rs.2,77,795/-. Needless to mention that if the applicant approach the authorities, the department is duty bound to provide him the details of recovery of Rs.2,77,795/-.

6. In view of the above, without issuing any notice and without entering into the merits of the case, this OA is dispose of with a direction to applicant to approach the respondent

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

s, more particularly the respondent no.4 seeking justification of recovery from his gratuity on the ground of overstay in government quarter within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such prayer of the applicant the authority shall calculate the amount in accordance with rules and provide the details of the recovery towards overstay in the quarter within a period of one month thereafter. 7. OA is disposed of accordingly at the admission itself. No order as to costs.
O R