Pension calculation must comply with specific rules; compulsory retirement does not entitle weightage for pension benefits.

ORDER

Urmita Datta Sen, Judicial Member

The applicant has preferred this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

“a) Your applicant prays that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 17.06.2017 which is Annexure A/14 to this application;

b) In view of the above facts, judgments of various courts including the Supreme Court referred above and Hon’ble Kolkata High Court Judgment dated 20.01.2014 the petitioner appeals to the Hon’ble CAT judges to issue a judgment order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to quash or set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed illegally without any enquiry proceedings following applicable rules and recalculate the petitioner’s pension, commute pension and DCRG benefits for his service from 2^nd September 1964 to 7^th April, 1988 and pay all such benefits with 18% simple interest for the delay period from the due date to the date actually paid to compensate for loss from return on investment if the amount was paid when it was due and also provide all calculation sheets with all payments within 60 days of receipt of the CAT certified judgment order;

c) Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to pay an additional compensation of Rs.250,000.00 as cost of an additional compensation of Rs.250, 000.00 as cost of damages for long sufferings and continued injury for 28 years within 60 days of receipt of CAT certified order which is due to negligence and irresponsibility of the respondents for not following applicable rules for imposing penalty of compulsory retirement;

d) In reliance with The Supreme Court judgment in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & ANR [Civil Appeal No.2668 of 2005] in para 7.xvi) above and the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1984, SCC 528 , Gwalior District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Mandal and others in para 7.xvii) above, the appellant should be paid exemplary cost of legal expenses by the respondents under the facts and circumstances of the case for not following any rules by the respondents. The petitioner has already spent Rs.5.9 lakhs from his retirement savings for legal proceedings for legal acts of the respondents.”

2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Learned Counsel for the applicant are as under:-

a) The applicant had joined service as Assistant Foreman in 1964 and thereafter worked as Foreman in Gun & Shell Factory, Cossipore, Kolkata with an excellent service record of 23 years 7 months. He applied for higher studies in U.S.A. on 06.06.1981. He was granted Earned Leave and Half Pay Leave from 08.03.1982 to 07.01.1983. Thereafter he made representation to the authorities to grant him Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) w.e.f. 08.01.1983 to 07.05.1986 for higher studies in U.S.A, which was not granted. In the meantime, on 04.04.1982 the applicant was directed to furnish an undertaking with regard to rendering 2 years of service under the respondents on completion of his higher studies. He had executed such undertaking on 23.05.1983.

b) However, on 04.04.1987, a charge sheet was issued against the applicant for misconduct and unauthorized absence from dutyon the ground that he had submitted fraudulent representation to visit U.S.A. for higher studies without taking formal admission to a university in U.S.A. He denied the charges levelled against him on 02.11.1987 and thereafter submitted application for compulsory retirement on 08.01.1988 and 14.01.1988 and t