Back
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.4117/2017
MA No. 3548/2018
Reserved on:17.12.2018
Pronounced on:21.12.2018
Hon’ble Ms. Praveen Mahajan, Member (A)
Shri Ram Kishan
Aged about 77 years
S/o late Shri Fateh Chand
Ex. Under Secretary
Ministry of Defence
R/o B-3/119, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi – 110 063.
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri D.K.Chopra)
VERSUS
The Secretary
Ministry of Defence,
South Block
New Delhi.
...Respondent
(By Advocate: Shri Hanu Bhaskar)
O R D E R
The applicant in the OA retired (voluntarily) on 04.11.1997
from the post of Under Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
Consequent upon the implementation of the 5th Central Pay
Commission effective from 01.01.1996. The pension of the
applicant was revised which resulted in certain increase over and
above his original commuted amount of pension on
superannuation.
The
differential
amount
of
Death-cum-
Retirement Gratuity and Commutation Value works upto
2
Rs.88053/- and Rs.162606/- respectively. The applicant states
that the same has not been paid to him despite various
representations made on the issue to the concerned divisions of
the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
2. The respondents in their counter affidavit submit that on
implementation of recommendations of 5th CPC, arrears of
Rs.88053/- (gratuity) and Rs.162606/- were authorised for
payment to the applicant vide PAO‟s letter No.713179700322
dated 10.02.1988. It is submitted that separate bills for both
the amounts were prepared by the Cash Section of the
respondent Ministry and sent to the Pay and Accounts Office for
making necessary payment to the applicant. As per the
information provided from PAO the above mentioned bills were
passed on 20.02.1998 and the cheques against these amounts
were forwarded to the respondent-Ministry.
3. The respondents stated that as of today there is no record
available with the Department whether the aforementioned
cheques were en-cashed or not, although the presumption is
that the cheques had been received by the applicant at the
relevant time.
4. During the course of hearing on 17.12.2018, the learned
counsel for the applicant, Shri D.K.Chopra stated that the
applicant is a senior citizen, who retired two decades ago and
3
has been denied his rightful dues by the respondents, who have
merely mentioned that the cheques have been issued in his
favour. However, the respondents have neither provided the
cheque numbers, nor given the date of issue of cheques
pertaining to the aforementioned payments despite repeated
requests. Shri Chopra argued that as per GFR Rules, the records
pertaining to Pay and Accounts Office have to be mandatorily
preserved for a period of 35 years by the respondents. Hence
the plea taken by them that the records are not available is
wrong.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Hanu Bhaskar
laboriously took the bench through the facts of the case. He
informed me that the applicant had filed an MA No.4329/2017
seeking condonation of delay in filing the OA. The same was
dismissed on 27.07.2018 being defective, with liberty to file a
fresh MA. The applicant then filed a fresh MA No.3548/2018
raising
the
same
ground
as
raised
in
the
earlier
MA
No.4329/2017. Shri Hanu Bhaskar stated that the cause of
action if any, arose to the applicant in 1997. However, the
applicant represented regarding non-payment of gratuity and
commutation of pension for the first time in August, 2013. Sh.
Bharkar forcefully argued that the OA of the applicant is
hopelessly time barred and not maintainable. He emphasized that
4
on merit too – the claim lacks credence since admittedly the bills
for the payments claimed had already been prepared and passed
by the respondents in 1998.
6. I have gone through the fac
