Bombay high court relief for 82-year-old over full benefits of pension
Coming to the rescue of an 82-year-old man, who was denied full benefits of pension by the Railway Board, the Bombay high court has asked the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to decide on his petition seeking benefits between the period of November 15, 1977 and September 1, 1986, within three months.
A division bench of Justices Anoop Mohta and Nitin Jamdar were hearing an appeal filed by Raghunath Bari, who retired as a junior clerk from the chief Security Commissioner’s Office in July 1993.
Bari had joined as ‘Rakshak’ in RPF in 1957. He met with an accident on duty in 1975 which rendered him unfit for the post of ‘head rakshak’. He was granted extraordinary leave and in 1977 and he was ultimately terminated as the Railway Board could not find and alternate employment for him in other departments.
In 1979, RPF requested the Railway Board to grant extraordinary leave. The Administration offered settlement dues to Bari in 1980.
Later in 1982, he was interviewed for the post of Hamal, but as more than 5 years had passed from the medically decategorisation, his case was not considered at that time also.
Ultimately, on 20 September, 1986, Bari was absorbed as peon in the office of DIG, RPF on the same pay scale, which he was drawing at the time of decategorisation. However, the increment for the period from 1977 to 1986 was not granted.
Bari took the job and refunded the settlement dues accordingly. Meanwhile, his request for wages for the period in question were pending till his retirement as junior clerk on 31 July, 1993.
Despite his representation on various occasions after retirement for benefits of pension between November 15, 1977 and September 1, 1986, he did not receive any reply. Then he approached the CAT, which rejected his petition in December 1996 on the ground of delay in filing the petition.
He then challenged the CAT order before HC.
While admitting his petition in 1998, the HC had observed: “Surprisingly, despite finding that the petitioner (Bari) had suffered because of ‘criminal negligence’ resulting in the delay for about 9 years in the Petitioner being offered a job the negligence being on the part of the Respondent Railway authorities, the petition was summarily rejected out on the ground of limitation by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Our judicial consciences does not, cannot permit this.”
When the petition was finally heard, the Railways contended that Bari was not entitled for any benefits including pension as prayed.
Setting aside the order of the CAT, the HC observed: “In this background, the order of dismissing the Original Application on the ground of delay, in our view, is unsustainable.”
Bari had made representation immediately after retirement. As he did not receive any reply, he had field petition before CAT.
“This, in our view, is sufficient reason/case to consider the claim of the Petitioner to the benefits of pension on merits rather than dismissing on the ground of delay. Such benefits cannot be denied and specifically in the present facts and circumstances of the case, on the ground of delay as done by the impugned order,” observed the judges.
Asking the CAT to decide on the matter afresh, the HC said: “Therefore, by keeping all points open, so far as the benefits of pension claim is concerned, we direct the learned Tribunal to decide the same in accordance with law on merits of the matter itself. There is no question of rejecting such claim on the ground of delay.”
Stay connected with us via Facebook, Google+ or Email Subscription.
Subscribe to Central Government Employee News & Tools by Email [Click Here]
Follow us: Twitter [click here] | Facebook [click here] | Google+ [click here]
Admin
COMMENTS