Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6775
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Manish Garg, J, Dr. Anand S Khati, A
Jai Parkash – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation – Respondent
O.A. No.2069/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Nil Mittal
For the Respondents: Ms. Arati Mahajan, Ms. Manushi Prajapati
Reinstatement with continuity of service mandates full consequential benefits, including pension and gratuity, based on actual service duration.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Pension fixation - Applicant challenged the reduction of qualifying service and basic salary by the respondent, leading to a significant decrease in pension and arrears. The Tribunal found that the reduction was made without proper justification or notice. (Paras 5.3, 5.4, 5.6)
(B) Continuity of service - The Tribunal reaffirmed that reinstatement with continuity of service must include all consequential benefits such as pension and gratuity based on the actual length of service. (Paras 5.5, 6.1)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was reinstated in 2009 after a Labour Court award but faced reductions in salary and pension calculations upon retirement. He sought to restore his pension based on his actual service duration of 32 years, 3 months, and 2 days, instead of the reduced tenure.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal ordered the re-fixation of pension and payment of arrears based on the correct length of service and salary, with interest.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the salary reduction and the entitlement to full pension based on actual service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that continuity of service must yield full benefits, and any reductions made without proper justification are invalid.
Result: Application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of applicant's service and claims (Para 2) |
| 2. opposition to applicant's claims (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observations on service continuity and reductions (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's order and directives for pension recalculation (Para 6) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):-
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
"(i) quash order dated 27-4-2018 (Annexure-A.2);
(ii) fix the salary of the applicant at the scale he was getting during his service from 3-8-2009 till 31-10-2015;
(iii) modify Pension Payment Order dated 16-4-2018 (Annexure-A.1) to the extent it fixes the pension of the applicant on the basis of basic salary of Rs.9,020/- instead of Rs. 17,410/- and on the basis of qualifying service of 10 years, 1 month and 23 days instead of 32 years 3 months and 2 days;
(iv) direct the respondent to pay arrears of pension which will be fixed in terms of prayer (ii) above from 1-11-2015 till actual payment after adjusting the amount already paid along with interest:
(v) direct the respondent to pay Rs. 1,99,900/- (Rs. One lakh ninety nine thousand nine hundred only) deducted from applicant's salary vide order dated 27-4-2018 (Annexure-A.1) with interest from the date of deduction till payment; (v)
(vi) direct the respondent to pay the arrears of amount of Rs.5,520/-(Rs. Five thousand five hundred twenty only) being deducted from the pension of the applicant every months."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant argued that by an award dated 26.03.2009, the Labour Court, Delhi reinstated the applicant with continuity of service with respect to seniority, gratuity, and suspension but without back wages. The said award reads as under:
“ AWARD
The management be directed to reinstate the workman in the same post within 30 days after publication of this award. The workman is entitled for continuity of service with respect to the seniority, gratuity and pension only. No back wages is awarded.”
2.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was reinstated in service vide order dated 03.08.2009 (Annexure A-4).
2.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant retired from service of the respondents on 31.10.2015 on superannuation after having served for about 36 years. Learned counsel drew our attention to an order dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure A/7) wherein the applicant was paid his retirement gratuity, which was calculated on the basis of qualifying service of 32 years 03 months and 02 days on the basis of basic salary of Rs.17,410/-.
2.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant preferred various representations to the respondents to pay his post- retirement pension, but to no avail. Finally, the applicant sent a legal notice dated 20.02.2018 to the respondent for release of his post retirement pension. Thereafter, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 16.04.2018.
2.4. He further submitted that in the said impugned order dated 16.04.2018 the qualifying service of the applicant, which 32 years 03 months and 02 days as per Gratuity Payment Order, was also reduced to 10 year 01 month and 23 days and the basic pay of the applicant has been reduced from Rs.17410/- to Rs.9,020/-.
2.5. He further submitted that the respondents passed an order dated 27.04.2018 wherein the salary of the applicant was re-fixed w.e.f. 13.08.2009 to 31.10.2015 and at the time of retirement, the applicant was entitled to basic salary of Rs.9,020/- instead of Rs.17,410/-.
2.6. He further submitted that a sum of Rs.11,89,749/- was ordered to be recovered from the applicant on the basis of the said re-fixation of the salary. A sum of Rs.1,99,900/-, which was arrears of pension from 01.11.2015 to 31.03.2018, was adjusted against the said recovery and not paid to the applicant, and he was directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.9,89,849/- to the respondents.
2.7. He s
