Pensionary benefits can be denied for periods of unauthorized absence under applicable rules, and prior decisions concerning the same parties bar relitigation under res judicata principles.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution ofIndia, the judgment and order dated 30.03.2012 as passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ‘saidTribunal’ in short) in O.A. 1256 of 2008 is assailed.

2. For effective adjudication of the instant writ petition some relevant factsare required to be dealt with which are as under:

(i) The writ petitioner was appointed on 08.09.1986 as an unapproved Bunglow Peon by the Eastern Railway Authority with effect from08.09.1986 (FN) against existing vacancy.

(ii) During the continuance of such service the writ petitioner was served with two numbers of charge-sheets in the month of January, 1990 and another charge-sheet on 21.09.1990 which contained the charge of unauthorised absence from duty.

(iii) The legality, validity and correctness of the said two charge-sheets was challenged by the writ petitioner before the said Tribunal by filing O.A. 358 of 1991 which was disposed of on 21.07.1997 whereby and whereunder the charge-sheet of January, 1990 and another charge- sheet dated 21.09.1990 were quashed and set aside along with the enquiry undertaken by the respondents. However, the said Tribunal granted liberty to the respondents authorities to proceed as per law against the writ petitioner finding that the charges labelled against the writ petitioner were serious. Further liberty was given to the writ petitioner in the event he desires to join, his case would be considered by the respondents authorities in accordance with law.

iv) Pursuant to such leave, the writ petitioner was however permitted to join in his duty which would be evident from the memo dated15.12.1997 (Page no. 30 of the paper-book).

(v) Soon thereafter the writ petitioner submitted a representation with the respondents authorities requesting to disburse service benefit and other consequential benefit with a prayer to regularise his past service.

(vi) Since such representation was not considered favourably the writ petitioner preferred second original application being O.A. 422 of 2001 which was disposed of by the said Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 09.01.2008 wherein the said Tribunal held thus:

“8.......... The applicant also was not able to produce any material to prove that he remained absent unauthorisedly for a long period due to no fault on his part and had it been done, he could have approached this Tribunal during the said period for getting relief. It is admitted fact that this clearly indicates that the applicant had absented himself on his own way and volition. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the respondents have justified in not granting back wages. However, the applicant's counsel submits that the alleged said period may be reckoned for the purpose of pension. We are of view that the absented period. I shall be considered for reckoning of pensionary benefits, if any as per rules and the pensionary benefit may be calculated taking into account the periods as well on the date of his retirement. This benefit shall not be extended for any other purpose except pensionary benefit. It is made clear that this will be available by the applicant if he is otherwise eligible as per Pension Rules. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, we do not intend to interfere in the impugned order. However, considering the given direction by this Tribunal and findings that the absented period will be counted f