Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2486
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Umesh Gajankush, J
Usha Yogiraj Naik – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.87/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.A. Nagrani
For the Respondents: Vaishali Choudhari
The right to pension and gratuity is a valuable right that cannot be denied without following due process and providing an opportunity for inquiry.
Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Recovery of gratuity - The applicant challenged the recovery of Rs.21,97,713/- from the gratuity of her deceased husband, who had been declared unauthorizedly absent based on biometric attendance records. The court noted that there was no proper inquiry or opportunity given before declaring the absence. (Paras 10, 12, 15)
(B) Natural Justice - The court emphasized that procedural fairness is essential in administrative actions, particularly where rights to pension and gratuity are involved. (Paras 12, 15)
Facts of the case:
The applicant's husband, a Top-grade Artist, was alleged to have been absent from duty for 780 days from 2014 to 2018, leading to a recovery order against his gratuity after his death due to COVID-19. The applicant claimed the orders were illegal and arbitrary.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the impugned orders were unsustainable due to lack of proper procedure and inquiry, and the applicant was entitled to her husband's retiral dues.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the recovery of gratuity and the procedure followed by the respondents in declaring unauthorized absence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence declaration lacked due process, and the right to pension and gratuity cannot be arbitrarily denied without following proper legal procedures.
Result: The Original Application is allowed, and the respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount and release all post-retiral dues within 60 days with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the applicant's husband's employment and attendance issues. (Para 1 , 2) |
ORDER
The present OA has been filed by the applicant challenging the impugned order dated Annexure A-4 20th July, 2021 ( ) issued by the respondents in respect of recovery of the amount of Rs.21,97,713/- out of amount of Gratuity of deceased husband of the applicant. The order Annexure A-1 dated 14th May, 2018 ( ), Memorandum Annexure A-2 dated 06th July, 2018 ( ) and order Annexure A-3 dated 01st February, 2019 ( ) are also under challenge.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the applicant was working with the respondents as “A Top-grade Artist” and during the entire period of service, the service record of the applicant’s husband was excellent blotless. It is stated that during the service of the applicant’s husband in May, 2014, the respondents have installed biometric machine at the work station at AIR Panji and the respondents started functioning those biometric machines from 01st June, 2014. It is stated that the husband of the applicant was discharging his duties regularly and he was very punctual in marking his biometric attendance. It is further stated that the husband of the applicant had applied for leave vide application dated 19th April, 2018 and the said application was sanctioned vide order dated 19th April, 2018 subject to permission from Directorate. It is stated that the applicant’s husband was having 237/467 days earned leave/commuted leave/half pay leave to his credit as on 30th June, 2018.
2.1 It is further stated that the applicant’s husband was transferred from AIR Panji to AIR Mumbai vide order dated 23rd April, 2018 and relieved him with immediate effect. Thereafter, a Memorandum dated 14th May, 2018 was issued in which it was alleged that as per biometric attendance record, the applicant’s husband remained absent from duty during the year 2014 to 2018 for total 780 days. After receipt of the aforesaid memorandum, the applicant’s husband immediately made an application dated 21st May, 2018 to the respondents requesting him to provide details pertaining to his attendance for the said period. However, instead of providing detailed attendance records, the respondents issued vague attendance details and further issued another Memorandum dated 06th July, 2018 wherein the applicant’s husband was directed to submit leave application to regularize alleged period of absenteeism within eight days else, the period of absence will be treated as unauthorized absence and further recovery will be initiated. On 11th July, 2018, reply was submitted again requesting for particular date wise details of alleged period of absenteeism.
2.2 It is further submitted that after joining at Mumbai on 13th August, 2018, the respondents did not release salary from April, 2018 to 13th August, 2018. Thereafter, inspite of various representations, salary was not released and, therefore, legal notice dated 10th September, 2018 was issued for release the salary. Thereafter, OA No.688/2018 was filed before this Tribunal challenging the memorandums which was disposed of vide order dated 28th November, 2018 directing the applicant to submit comprehensive representation to the respondents and the respondents were directed to pass reasoned orders.
2.3 In pursuance of the aforesaid order, detailed and comprehensive representation dated 07th December, 2018 was submitted. However, vide impugned communication/order dated 01st February, 2019, the said representation was rejected. Thereafter, OA No.185/2019 was filed by challenging impugned order dated 01st February, 2019, impugned Memorandums dated 14th May, 2018 and 06th July, 2018, in which vide order dated 20th March, 2019, interim protection was granted not to the applicant by directing the respondents “ to take any coercive steps in pursuance to the impugned orders impugned by the applicant in the present OA ”. It is stated that during the pendency of the said OA, the applicant’s h
