SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6071

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shri Manish Garg, J, Shri Rajinder Kashyap, A
Sh. Shoorbeer Singh Negi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Government of India – Respondent
O.A. NO.2957 OF 2024 | O.A. No.3170 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri R.K. Dixit
For the Respondents: Shri T.C. Aggarwal

The withholding of retirement benefits and imposition of damage charges without due process violates principles of natural justice and is impermissible under law.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Quashing of impugned order and refund of withheld DCRG - Applicant sought relief against the withholding of DCRG amounting to Rs.4,79,524/- and damage charges of Rs.22,75,053/- imposed without due process - The Tribunal found the withholding of DCRG unjustified and ruled that recovery of damages without proper notice contravened principles of natural justice. (Paras 10-18)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The Tribunal emphasized that due process must be followed before imposing financial liabilities on retired employees, especially when no prior notice or justification was provided. (Paras 11-12)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a retired postal employee, contested the withholding of his gratuity amount and the imposition of damage charges for retaining government accommodation without proper notice. He argued that the respondents had previously acknowledged no dues pending against him.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal quashed the impugned order requiring the applicant to pay damage charges and ordered the release of the withheld DCRG with applicable interest.

Issues: The main issues were the legality of withholding DCRG and the imposition of damage charges without due process.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal held that the withholding of gratuity and imposition of charges post-retirement without following legal procedures was impermissible and against established legal principles.

Result: OAs allowed; impugned order quashed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 2)
2. arguments from both parties regarding dcrg and damages (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court's observations on facts and procedural issues (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. legal principles regarding recovery of dues and interest (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. final order and conclusion of the tribunal (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

ORDER

Hon’ble Shri Rajinder Kashyap, M (A) :

Since the issues involved in this case are interconnected to the issues involved in another matter, i.e., OA 3170/2024 filed by the very same applicant, the reliefs are also connected to each other, as such with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, both these OAs have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

OA No.2957/2024

By filing the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 8.4.2024 alongwith calculation sheet dated 30.3.2024 (Annexure A-1 of O.A.) with all consequential benefits.

ii) To issue any other suitable order or direction or which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

iii) To award the costs of the application in favour of the applicant.”

OA No.3170/2024

By filing this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.4,79,524/- withheld from DCRG of the applicant with 18% interest.

(ii) To issue any other suitable order or direction or which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) To award the costs of the application in favour of the applicant.”

FACTS IN BRIEF:

2. Brief relevant facts of the case as stated by the applicant leading to filing of these OAs are that the applicant, who was working under the respondents, on his request, was allotted a Govt. accommodation, i.e., Type-II Quarter NO.NIL at Veerbhadra Postal Colony vide letter dated 9.8.2012 issued by respondent no.5 (Annexure A-2) with immediate effect.

2.1 The applicant, who was going to retire from the service on 31.3.2023 sought permission from respondent no.5 to permit him to reside in the aforesaid Govt. accommodation at Veebhadra Postal Colony with normal fees from the month of April to July 2023 and the respondent no.5 vide letter dated 4.7.2023 (Annexure A-5) had granted permission to the applicant to reside in the said quarter till 31.7.2023 with normal license fee (Rs.370) and the applicant was also directed to make sure to pay electricity and water bills regularly.

2.2 The applicant had vacated the said quarter on 28.7.2023 and handed over the possession of the said quarter to the Sub- Postmaster (LSG) Veerbhadra Dehradun on 28.7.2023 with endorsement of SPM, handed over quarter and deposited Electricity bill Rs.1560/- (Annexure A-6).

2.3 The applicant, who had attained the age of superannuation on 31.3.2023 from the post of Sub Post Master Shivanand Nagar, Post Office under Tehri Division, Tehri, was issued Pension Payment Order (PPO) (Annexure A- 7), wherein, it is stated at Serial No.58 Dues Recovery NIL, which shows that there was no recovery against the applicant pending and as per Sl. No.55 of the PPO, the DCRG amount had been calculated and mentioned as Rs.14,57,280/-.

2.4 According to the applicant, once the respondents have themselves mentioned that there was no recovery pending against the applicant in the said PPO then the respondents are duty bound to pay full amount of DCRG as mentioned in the PPO (Annexure A-7) as well as in Annexure A-8 pertains to intimation of Gratuity dated 19.6.2023.

2.5 According to the applicant, the respondents withheld the amount of Rs.4,79,524/- from the aforesaid total amount of DCRG without any justification and without disclosing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top