--Vv" $>-

1. -I ='>/

1 oa No.10?/2023 "

_CE_lfl,IRAL%A,QMlNlSIRAI|Y_E TRIBUNAL BENCH, MUMB.A.l_

.QB!GlNAL 1 Date of ecision:WTHApril, 2024 CQRAMZ HONBLE JUSTHGE M.G.SEWLlKAR, MEMBER (J)

Mr. Ramaiyer Balsubrahmanyam, Son of Late Ram lyer, age 80 years, Residing at No. 1, 8*“ Main VS, 4*“ Cross, Sapthagiri Layout, \/idyaranayapura Post, Bangalore - 560 097, Mobile No. 9845015656,Email id: anangdbala909@yaho,o,.com Applicant (ByAdvocate Mr. Kunal Damle I/b Mr. R R Lanjekar)

VERSUS .,_, 1. Union of lndia5,iThrough the General Manager, Central Railway, Headquarters Office, CSMT, Mumbai 400 001.

2. Chief Personal Officer (E), Central Railway, Headquarters Office, CSMT, Mumbai 400 001.

3. Dy. Manager (Estt.), Indian Railways Construction Co. Ltd., IRCON, Nevi Mumbai, C.B.D. Belapur, CIDCO Bhavan, Navi Mumbai.

4. Divisional Railway Manager, D.R.M. Office, North Central Railway, Jhansi- U.P - 284001.

5. Divisional Personnel Officer, Settlement Section, North Central Railway, D.R.M. Office, Jhansi — UP- 284001.

2 _

6. Financial Advisor, Chief Accounts Officer, North Central Railway, H ~ Block, H.O Subedar Ganj, Allahabad ~ UP-

211011.

7. General Manager, North Central Railway - H.O, Subedar Ganj, Allahabad ---- UP- 211011.

8. Chief Accounts Officer, DRM Office, North Central Rail-

way, Jhansi, UP -— 284001. ...Respondents (ByAdvocate Mr. R R Shetty)

ORDER (Oral!

Per.:J.usti@e. R. B;;E.;R (J1 O The applicant in this OA is claiming the restora~

tion of pension from 11*“ October, 2001 titi 31$‘ De-

cember, 2015.

2. lt is the case of the applicant that on 10*“ June, 1963, he joined Central Railways. He worked in the Central Railways for a period of 20 years. On 10"‘ June, 1981, the applicant joined IRCON and was permanently absorbed in IRCON on 10*“ June, 1984.The job in IRCON was not a pensionable job.

"""""""""" ””””’ %»¥;§ :

3 _QA___NQ_.l,_0Zm/Z__QZ__3 Therefore, the applicant was deemed to have retired on 9"‘ June, 1984 from the Central Railways. Accord- ing to the applicant, he applied for 100 percent com- mutation and on that account he was getting one- third pension. ln terms of OM dated 23*“ June, 2017, the retired employee would get full pension after completion of fifteen years or retirement. The appli- cant completed fifteen years in the year 2001 after retirement from Central Railways. i=,He, therefore, made correspondence with the respondents for restoration of his full pension. The respondents did restore his full pension but from 018‘ January, 2016 and not from 10"‘ June, 2001. The applicant is, there- fore, claiming restoration of pension from 10"‘ June, 2001 till 31$‘ December, 2015.

4 _Q@@MQLLm®1QO23

3. The respondents in their reply have not disputed this position. They contend that in terms of the OM dated 23”‘ June, 2017, a retired employee is entitled to full pension after completion of fifteen years of his retirement.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is entitled to full pension from 10*“ June, 2001 i.e. the date on which he completed fif- teen years of his retirement. He submits that the ap- plicant is entitled to interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum because the amount of pension was de- layed not on account of any fault on the part of appli- cant but it was delayed on account of administrative FGGSOHS.

5 Q51 1.10Z/20.-.23

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant is not entitled to interest. The re- spondents had taken a decision to restore the full pension ofthe retired employees after fifteen years of their retirement. He submits that the applicant has not approached the Tribunal within the specified pe- riod of limitation from the date on which the cause of action arose. Therefore, he is not entitled to interest. He submits that Railway Board Policy also does not speak about the payment of interest in case of de-

layed payment.

6. l have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Undisputedly, the applicant retired from Central Railways on