At, Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN
By, MEMBER (J) & THE HONOURABLE MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM
By, MEMBER (A)
For the Applicant: A S N Murthi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Alka Sharma, Advocate.
Shri G George Paracken:
The facts in this case are not disputed. The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 558/2010 and it was disposed of vide Annexure A-2 order dated 08.07.2010. The relevant part is as under:-
'4. Leaving other grounds open, this OA is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 22.4.208 is set aside. Respondents are now directed to regulate the suspension period of the applicant strictly in accordance with law, rules and instructions on the subject and before it, a reasonable opportunity to a show cause notice shall be afforded to the applicant.
5. Insofar as recovery is concerned, as no show cause notice was issued on that, the recovery ordered against the applicant is set aside. Keeping in light the decision in suspension, the respondents would be at liberty to act in accordance with rules, instructions and law on the subject. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.'
2. Therefore, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 7.2.2011 and its operative part is as under:-
'And whereas, Sh. Akhil Gupta, then LDC filed an OA vide No. 558/2010 in the Hon’ble CAT against the order Dated 22.04.2008. The Hon’ble CAT vide order dated 08.07.2010, set aside the recovery as no Show Cause Notice had been issued prior to the recovery.
And whereas, pursuant to the order of Hon’ble CAT as mentioned above, Shri Akhil Gupta, Ex-LDC was directed to show cause as to why his period of suspension should not be treated as stated above vide Show Cause Notice no.F.5(46)/DC/A/2002/3042 dated 20.12.2010. He was directed to reply within 60 days of the receipt of the Show Cause notice (as provided in FR-54-B), failing which necessary action, as deemed fit, would be taken.
And whereas, the Hon’ble CAT in CP No.941/2010 (OA No.558/2010) (vide it’s order dated 21.01.2011) disposed off the CP with the directions to Sh. Akhil Gupta, Ex-LDC to respond to the Show Cause Notice issued by the department within 7 days and thereafter the proceedings to be concluded by the Competent Authority within 7 days thereof.
And whereas, Sh. Akhil Gupta, Ex-LDC vide his letter dated 28.01.2011, received in this department on 31.01.2011 has submitted the reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 20.12.2010.
Now hereby, upon careful consideration of the rules and regulations in this regard and without prejudice to the earlier order dated 22.04.2008 of the then Competent Authority, the Competent Authority orders that in super session of order No.F.5(46)/DC/C/ Admn./2002/831 to 833 dated 22.04.08, the period of suspension w.e.f. 23.08.2002 to 21.12.2005 in respect of Sh. Akhil Gupta Ex-LDC may be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes.'
3. The applicant has challenged the aforesaid order by filing the present OA, seeking the following reliefs:-
'(a) to formally issue orders on the acceptance of his resignation w.e.f. 27.12.2005 and not w.e.f. 21.12.2005 as the applicant, after revocation of his suspension, had attended to his official duties between 22.12.2005 and 27.12.2005 but the respondents have taken an arbitrary decision to accept the resignation of the application w.e.f. 21.12.2005 which action is contrary to the facts.
(b) to direct the respondents to revise the pay and allowances admissible to the applicant between the period 01.08.2002 and 27.12.2005 with annual increments released to him in his pay scale;
(c) to direct the respondents to release pay and allowances for the suspension period 23.08.2002 to 21.12.2005 as admissible to him after such revision as prayed for in (a) above and after adjustment of subsistence allowance paid to him during the said period;
(d) to direct the respondents to release applicant’s full pay and allowances for the duty period between 01.08.2002 and 22.08.2002 and between the period 22.12.2005 and 27.12.2005 as the applicant was physically attending office and was performing his duties during the said period.
(e) to direct the respondents to release his annual bonus for the relevant years admissible to him under the rules;
(f) to direct the respondents to recalculate applicant’s leave account for the entire period of his service between 22.09.1994 and 27.12.2005 and order release of his leave encashment entitlements as admissible under the CCS (Leave) Rules and as per revised pay and allowances calculated under (a) above;
(g) to direct the respondents to release gratuity under the CCS (Pension) Rules as the applicant put in more than 11 years of service in the Department;
(h) to direct the respondents to release productivity linked bonus for the years for which the applicant has not been released the bonus but is entitled to;
(i) to direct the respondents to release his GPF accumulations together with interest calculated upto-date as per Rule 11(4) of the GPF (CS) Rules;
(j) to direct the respondents to release UTGEIS benefits along with interest thereon as admissible under paras 8.1 and 11.1 of the UGEI scheme;
(k) to direct the respondents to order applicants promotion to his next higher grade in the event any of applicants juniors has been promoted during the period of suspension of the applicant.
(l) to direct the respondents to pay interest on delayed payment on all the above counts as per the statutory rules obtaining on the relevant subject;
(m) to direct the respondents to pay interest @ 12 per cent per annum on all his dues where no specific provision for payment of interest exists as the applicant was made to suffer for no fault of hi; and his entitlements towards pay and allowances for the entire period of suspension became due immediately on revocation of suspension but withheld by the respondents arbitrarily and illegally; and that as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the reported case of Re: State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985 (1) SCC 429); Hon’ble SC also held that ‘where the Govt. cannot assign any reason for delay in payment of the gratuity and other benefits, it should pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum.'
(l) to impose exemplary costs on the respondents for causing great mental agony, harassment and for suspending him against rules and for no apparent reason whatsoever thereby forcing him to leave service frustrated. That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously notice the fact that the respondents instead of acting as a benevolent employer have taken advantage of the helplessness of the applicant, a low level employee, an LDC in the office of the 2nd respondent;
(m) to award costs of the litigation as the applicant was compelled to knock the doors of justice time and again for redressal of his grievances thereby by incurring avoidable expenditure for seeking justice and
(n) to pass such further or other Order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.'
4. We have considered the aforesaid reliefs sought for by the applicant in this OA. In our considered view, the respondents ought to have considered those points without forcing him to approach this Tribunal. We, therefore, dispose of this OA and direct the respondents to work out the entitlement of the applicant on each of the above reliefs as admissible under the rules after preparing due and drawn statements on each of them. The sum
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
total of the amount admissible to the applicant on the aforesaid ‘heads’ shall be paid to him within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant will also be entitled for the interest at the prevailing GPF rates for the delay in payment from the date he has submitted his resignation till the date of payment on each of the aforesaid heads. In any case, if the applicant is not entitled for payment on any of the ‘heads’ claimed by him, the respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order explaining the reasons as to why they are not admissible to him. If the applicant is still aggrieved in the matter, he is at liberty to approach this Tribunal again through appropriate proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs.