IN THE CENTRAL ADMINSTRATIVF. TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD OA. NO. 021/01291/2015 Date of Order 18.07.2017

IN THE CENTRAL ADMINSTRATIVF. TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD

OA. NO. 021/01291/2015  Date of Order 18.07.2017

Between M Gunesh. S/o M S R Murthy Aged 72 years. Occ Retd. Assistant Mining Engineer,

o/o the Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur,

... Applicant

And Union of India, rep. By the Secretary. Govt. Of India, M/o Personnel,

Public Grievances & Pensions, Deptt. Of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, Loknayak Bhaw an. Room No 330-C, 3rd Floor, Khan Market, New Delhi - 110 003

Facts of the case:

Communicated vide letter No/2014/Conf„ dated 21.10.2014 and declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicant for Dearness Relief as illegal, unjust arbitrary, discriminatory and is in violation of the low decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and set aside and quash the said letter dated 26/29.09.2014 and direct the respondents to release the payment of Dearness Relief admissible to the applicant from the date on which the applicant was allowed to take Voluntary Retirement from IBP Company Limited (earlier called as Indo Burma Petroleum Company Limited i.e. 19.10.1994 till 01.11.2001 (i.e., the date on which l/3rd pension was restored) and also release the other benefits like Interim Relief granted by the Central Government during the said period and any other benefits which were accrued to the applicant on par with other retirees of Central Government duly praying interest @ 12% pa on such payments till the pay is released and grant all consequential benefits to the applicant and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Assistant Mining Engineer in the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), Department of Mines, went on deputation to The indo-Burma Petroleum from 01.11.2001. However, the retirement did not release the dearness relief from 19.10.1994 to 01.11.2001. The applicant submitted several representations to the respondent Ministry and also to the 2nd respondent. Inspite of the settled position of law and also the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of AP in W.P.No.21824/2010 for the release of the balance of pension and dearness relief for the pre-restoration stage, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned orders stating that the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court is applicable to the petitioner therein only. On this ground, his claim for dearness relief was not processed. The applicant's case is that in the light of the law decided by the Hon'ble High Court of AP and implemented in other Central Government Departments, me denial nf his request is not valid in law.

3.      The applicant contends that on account of rejection of his claim for dearness relief, he has sustained monetary loss to the extent of Rs, 1,46,000/-. Apart from the above, the other benefits like interim relief on the full basic pension due to him have not been released. It is submitted by the applicant that said action of the respondents is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P V Sundara Rajan v. Union of India in which it has been held that even if a pensioner commutes 100% pension, such pensioners would be entitled to dearness allowance at pre-restoration stage as in the case of other Central Government pensioners. It is also pointed out to that the Hon’ble High Court of AP had placed reliance on the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding WP.No.21824 of 2010.

4.It is further contended by the applicant that judicial interpretation would prevail over the rules even if such rules are not amended. Further, the judgments relied upon by him are not judgments in persona and are in fact judgments in rem, which contain discussions with regard to the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Thus, the action of the in not releasing the dearness relief admissible to the applicant from 19.10.1994 i.e. the date on which he was allowed to take voluntary' retirement from IBP till the date on which his pension was restored on 01.11.2001 is in violation of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 144 of the Constitution. The applicant further points out that the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already been considered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 85/2014, dated 17.08.2015.

Held as follows:

16.     It is a settled principle of law That when there  are similarly situated persons the Government should on its own grant the same relief to the others and should not force similarly situated employee to approach the court, this ratio has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a cantina of judgment including Ram Prakash Dhawan v. state of Punjab (1997 (2) SCT 589). Sathya pal Singh v. State of Haryana (1999 (2) SIJ 371). Gopal Krishan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (1993 SCC (I & S) 544). In Amrit Lai v. Collector of central Excise, Delhi (1975 (1) SLR 153 SC) the Hon’ble Apex Court Held as follows: -

"When a citizen is aggrieved by the Govt, department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his favors. Others in like circumstances should be able to rely on the senses of responsibility of the department concerned and to accept that they will give the benefits of declaration without need to take their grievances to the court”

17. Having held that the facts of this case are identical to that of O.A.No.242/2009 upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of AP at Hyderabad in W.P.No.21824/2010, the applicant who is a similarly situated pension is entitled to the same relief. Further, the judgment relied upon by the respondent are not relevant for denying the claim of the applicant In the result, the OA is allowed. There shall be a direction to the respondent to release the dearness relief and benefits like interim relief granted by the Central Government from the date on which he took voluntary retirement from IBP on 19.10.19 till the date on which his 1/3" pension was restored. Three months’ time is granted for compliance. In raw, the payment d no released within the aforesaid period, the applicant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate applicable to GPF deposit from the date on which he has approached this Tribunal seeking hit legal remedies.

18. No order as to costs.