##PAGE1##

:: 1 :: O.A.No.55/2024

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

AHMEDABAD BENCH

O.A. No.55/2024

Dated this 28th Day of January, 2026

CORAM:

Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)

1. Shri. Sanjay s/o Vyankat Chakranarayan,

Age – 58 years, Occ-NIL, suchakra@gmail.com,

R/o Sukli Post-Lotwadad,

Tah – Dariyapur, Dist-Amravati – 444803.

.....Applicant

(By Advocate Mr. Namit R Kanungo)

Versus

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary,

Central Water Commission,

Opposite of kshetrapal, Health Centre, Sangrampura,

Surat, Gujarat – 395008.

2. Chief Engineer, H.O and C.F.F. Zone,

Central Water Board, Gandhinagar,

Gujarat – 382010.

3. The Pay & Accountant Officer,

Central Water Commission,

New Delhi – 110066.

4. The Superintending Enginner,

Hydrological Central Water Commission,

Gandhinagar, Gujarat – 382010.

………………....Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. H.D. Shukla)

O R D E R(ORAL)

Per : Hon’ble Dr.Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)

1. In the instant OA, the applicant being aggrieved with the order

dated 19.02.2018 (Annexure A/1) issued by the respondents

2026.02.19

PRATIK

15:08:31

VYAS

+05'30'

:: 2 :: O.A.No.55/2024

whereby the request of the applicant for release of gratuity and

pension had been rejected, has filed the present OA under Section 19

of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act 1985 seeking relief for quashing

and setting aside the said order and consequential benefits along

with 12 % interest.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1 That the applicant joined the respondent department as

Khalasi on 06.09.1984 and worked for a period of 20 years in

different division at Nagpur.

2.2 Thereafter, a criminal case was filed against the applicant

wherein he was convicted and subsequently, the respondents

terminated his service on 08.04.2004 without giving any notice to

him and vide order dated 28.06.2005 released only G.P.F. amount of

Rs. 1,04,488/-.

2.3 Further, the applicant submitted representation dated

16.08.2017 followed by another representation dated 14.09.2017

whereby he requested that his gratuity and pension may be released.

However, the said representations were not decided by the

respondents. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed O.A. No. 2300/2017

before this Tribunal and this Tribunal while disposing of the said OA

vide order dated 15.01.2018 directed the respondents to consider

the said representation of the applicant within 10 weeks from the

date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

2.4 Thereafter, the applicant vide his representation dated

18.01.2018 and 09.04.2018 by referring the order passed by this

Tribunal in O.A. No. 2300/2017 dated 15.01.2018 requested the

respondents to consider his representation for grant of gratuity and

pension. In response thereto and in compliance of the direction

issued by this Tribunal, the respondents vide communicated dated

17.04.2018 informed the applicant that his request for grant of

gratuity and pension was rejected vide communication dated

2026.02.19

PRATIK

15:08:31

VYAS

+05'30'

:: 3 :: O.A.No.55/2024

19.02.2018 on the ground of provision laid down in Rule 11, CCS

(CCA) Rules which stipulates that “Forfeiture of Past Service – A

Government Servant removed or dismissed from service shall forfeit

his past service and shall not be entitled to Pension/Gratuity.”

2.5 Hence, this OA.

3. In support of the prayer sought in the OA, Mr. Namit R

Kanungo learned counsel for the applicant mainly submitted as

under:-

3.1 That the respondents have neither mentioned in the impugned

order 19.02.2018 about the representation of the applicant nor the

applicant was called to justify the allegations levelled against him

before passing impugned order dated 19.02.2018.

3.2

Further, he argued that the applicant’s service book was in

Surat Division and therefore, the respondent without considering and

perusing the same, has passed the impugned order.

3.3 Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the

applicant had rendered approximately 20 years of service. Therefore,

the respondents ought to have given him a show c