CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH M.A. No.310/00854 of 2024 DATED TUESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE CORAM :

HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)

HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)

S. Singaravelu, S/o. S. Subramanian, Aged 70 years, Ex- Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk, Chennai Division, Southern Railway, Residing at:

Plot No. 870, ΤΝΗΒ, Chitlapakkam, Chennal 126, Tamil Nadu -600 126.

..........Applicant (Advocate: M/s. K. Manickaraj)

Vs.

1. Union of India represented by The Secretary, Railway Board.

Raisina Road, New Delhi, 110001;

2. The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai-600003

3. The Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Park-Town, Chennai 600 003;

4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Chennai Division, Southern Railway Park-Town, Chennai 600 003. …...Respondents (Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC)

O R D E R (Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J)

Applicant has filed OA along with the application for condonation of more than

20 years delay.

2. The reason for filing OA after such inordinate delay has been explained by the applicant stating that he had joined service in the cadre of Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk on 14.3.1977 and while working at Chennai Central Railway Station in Reservation Office, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for major penalty which culminated in the penalty advice dated 01.6.1988 and he was removed from service with effect from 08-06-1988. As he was not served enquiry report, he filed an appeal, but the penalty was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. In O.A. No.156 of 1990 filed by the applicant, this Tribunal set aside the above order on the grounds of procedural lapses vide its order dated 04/03/1991. Pursuant thereto, the applicant was reinstated in service but was kept under deemed suspension with effect from the date of his removal from service on 9/6/1988, and the disciplinary proceedings was continued after serving him copy of enquiry report. The applicant was again imposed the penalty of removal from service on 07/12/1992. In the appeal filed by the applicant, the Appellate Authority modified the penalty to compulsory retirement on 09/09/1993. Being aggrieved, the applicant raised an industrial dispute before Labour Court in ID No.485/2001 but the same was dismissed on 13/07/2007. Applicant filed W. P. No. 13196 of 2001 before Madras High Court, but the same was also dismissed on 13/07/2007.

3. It is further stated that after the dismissal of his case by Industrial Tribunal, the 4^th respondent had advised the applicant vide letter dated 27/07/2001 to report to office on or before 10/08/2001 to fill up necessary forms for availing the benefits of compulsory retirement. Accordingly, the applicant had submitted settlement papers without prejudice to his rights and his contention in W. P. No.13196 of 2001 pending before the Madras High Court. The 4^th respondent had settled only Rs.15704/- on leave salary and Rs.3007/- on PF balance in PF Account but had not settled DCRG and the pension. During January 2002, applicant requested the 4^th respondent in person to sanction pension as per Pension Rules, 1993 based on settlement papers submitted by him on 05/09/2001. During August 2003, applicant was under the condition of mental illness and could not follow up the process of settlement benefits. After 20 years, as his health recovered, applicant approached 4^th respondent through Union representative for pension settlement, but it was informed that the settlement papers were sent to record office and it would take time to trace them. However, as there was no progress, applicant expressed willingness to submit fresh settlement papers, but there is no response from 4^th respondent. The applicant gave representation dated 16/06/2023 to the 4^th respondent for sanction of pension and settlement benefits of compulsory retirement as he was eligible under rule 64 of the Railway Services Pension Rules 1993. The respondent made only a par