Dismissed

Suresh Chander v. Union of India and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Nov 2022CWP/6869/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the dismissal of an old pension revision application due to limitation. The High Court held that the tribunal correctly dismissed the belated application as sufficient cause was not shown, citing Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed along with any pending miscellaneous applications. The impugned order of the Tribunal was not interfered with.

Suresh Chander Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

ON THE 10^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶5

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

¶7

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6869 of 2021

¶8

Between:-

¶9

SH. SURESH CHANDER, S/O SH. SHANKER LAL, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O V.P.O. CHANDI, TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTT. SOLAN, H.P.

¶10

.…..PETITIONER (BY MR. RAMAKANT SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND

¶11

1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS, NIRMAN BHAWAN, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI.

¶12

2. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS WELFARE, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI.

¶13

¶14

3. CHIEF CONTROLLER (PENSION), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE, TRIKOOT-2 BIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI.

¶15

4. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK, CPPC BRANCH, NAGPUR, THROUGH ITS MANAGER, SOMALWAR BHAWAN, NAGPUR, MAHARASHTRA.

¶16

5. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK, BRANCH CHANDI, DISTT. SOLAN THROUGH ITS MANAGER, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶17

…...RESPONDENTS

¶18

(MR. BALRAM SHARMA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, FOR R-1 TO R-3)

¶19

RESERVED ON 03.11.2022

¶20

DECIDED ON 10.11.2022

¶21

This petition coming on for pronouncement of order this day, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, passed the following:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 19^th February, 2021 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No.063/1235/2018.

¶24

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner

¶25

¶26

prayed that his pension has been wrongly revised and re-fixed and he is entitled to benefits of office memorandums dated 04.08.2016 issued by respondent No.2.

¶27

The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that he was appointed as Mono Key Board Operator in Government of India Press Shimla on 03.03.1975 and took voluntary retirement on 01.08.2005 after serving the respondents for more than 30 years and started receiving monthly pension in the sum of Rs.11,138/- with effect from 01.09.2005. After revision of the pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006, his pension was calculated at Rs 12,587/- per month and he started getting Rs.10,360/ per month after deducting commuted pension amount of Rs.2,227/- per month. In the year 2013, the respondents revised and decreased the pension of the petitioner retrospectively to Rs.8,392/- from Rs.12,587/- with effect from 01.01.2006 and had calculated recovery of Rs.5,18,502/- and started deducting Rs.3,000/- per month from the reduced revised monthly pension of the petitioner without any notice and without giving any opportunity of personal hearing to him and they had already recovered an amount of Rs.1,77,000/-. The petitioner has sought the following

¶28

¶29

substantive reliefs:-

¶30

“(i) That the judgment passed by the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench dated 19.02.2021 at Annexure P-5 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶31

(ii) That the letter dated 17.06.2013 at Annexure P-1 whereby the recovery of Rs.5,18,502 from petitioner has been ordered to be effected, may kindly be quashed and set aside. The recoveries of Rs.1,77,000/- already effected from the petitioner, may kindly be restored to him with penal interest.

¶32

(iii) That the respondents may also kindly be directed to grant the benefits of 7^th CPC as per O.M. dated 04/08/2016 and 06/07/2017 at Annexures P-2 and P-3 issued by the respondent no.2 and accordingly release the pension of the petitioner w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits.”

¶33

In the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3, it has

¶34

been averred tha t after implementation of VIth CPC report, the basic pension of the petitioner was revised to Rs.8,392/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2006, however, before issuance of above revision, the bank revised his basic pension to Rs.12,587/- per month, ignoring the fact that DA up to 50% has already been

¶35

¶36

merged as DP while fixing the pension at the time of retirement of the petitioner and wrong revision of pension by the Bank resulted in excess payment of Rs.5,18,502/- to the petitioner. After receipt of revision authority dated 17.06.2013, bank started recovering excess amount paid to him @ Rs.3,000/- per month and recovered amount so far is Rs.1,77,000/- and an amount of Rs.3,41,502/- is yet to be recovered from him.

¶37

5. I n the short reply filed by respondents No.4 and 5, it has been averred that respondents No.4 and 5 neither calculated the pension of the petitioner nor fixed or re-fixed the same. They are only providing their banking services to the petitioner and only maintaining his saving bank account.

¶38

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record. 7. It is not disputed that the petitioner was working as Mono Key Board Operator in Government of India Press, Shimla, H.P. and he took voluntary retirement on 01.08.2005 and at the time of taking his retirement, his qualifying service was over 30 years. In the year 2013, the respondents had fixed and reduced the monthly pension of the petitioner from Rs.12,587/- per month to Rs.8,392/- per month with

¶39

¶40

retrospective effect from 01.01.2006 and vide letter dated 17.06.2013 (Annexure P-1), the recovery of an amount of Rs.5,18,502/- was ordered to be effected by continuously deducting the amount of Rs.3,000/- per month from the monthly pension of the petitioner.

¶41

Thus, it has become clear that the first recovery was effected from the monthly pension of the petitioner in the month of September, 2013, as per letter dated 17.06.2013 (Annexure P-1), copy of which was duly endorsed to the petitioner. As such, he was well aware of the aforesaid letter in the month of June, 2013. Hence, the cause of action had arisen in favour of the petitioner in the year, 2013, but despite that he had chosen to file the original application (OA) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in the month of October, 2018 only i.e. after a period of more than 5 years. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act’ ), which reads as under:-

¶42

“ 21.Limitation .- (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,-

¶43

(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with

¶44

¶45

the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;

¶46

(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.

¶47

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where-

¶48

(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and

¶49

(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court,

¶50

the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.

¶51

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.”

¶52

Thus, in terms of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, an application has to be filed within the prescribed period

¶53

¶54

stipulated above unless the petitioner is able to show sufficient ground for not making the application within the prescribed period. A plain reading of Section 21 of the Act makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) or an order is passed in terms of Sub-Section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period and there is a clear bar to admit a belated application unless the petitioner is able to show sufficient ground for not making the application within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21(3) of the Act. In

¶55

D.C.S. Negi Versus Union of India and others, (2108) 16

¶56

Supreme Court Cases 721 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period . The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

¶57

“13. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the

¶58

¶59

same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21(1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21(3).

¶60

14. In the present case, the Tribunal entertained and decided the application without even adverting to the issue of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain this omission by pointing out that in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, no such objection was raised but we have not felt impressed. In our view, the Tribunal cannot abdicate its duty to act in accordance with the statute under which it is established and the fact that an objection of limitation is not raised by the respondent/non-applicant is not at all relevant.”

¶61

In the present case, the petitioner not only had filed

¶62

the OA before the Tribunal below after a period of more than 5 years, but also had failed to move an application for condonation of delay or to show any sufficient cause for not

¶63

¶64

making the application within the prescribed period of limitation, therefore, we are of the opinion that the OA could not be entertained on the ground of limitation as stipulated under Section 21 of the Act, as such, the learned Tribunal below had rightly dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner.

¶65

Therefore, the impugned order dated 19^th February, 2021 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench in OA No.063/ 1235/2018 does not require any interference. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶66

( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge

¶67

November 10, 2022 ( VH )

Suresh Chander v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chander v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lachhu Ram Vs Dr. Y.S. Parmar University

Mohan Lal and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Randeep Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Amar Dev Vs Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Hp

Arvind Guleria Vs State of Hp and Others