OA No.517/2011 RESERVED
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.517 OF 2011
DATED THIS , THE DAY OF
AUGUST, 2013.
CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE, MEMBER
(A)
Mrs. Afsar Salim Shaikh
Residing at 14/4 'H' Type
Factory Quarters,
Range Hills Khadki,
Pune 411 020 ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri P.J.Prasadrao)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block,
New Delhi 110 011.
2. The General Manager,
Ammunition Factory,
Khadki Pune 411 003
3. The Principal C D A [Pension]
Draupatighat, Allahabad 211 014
4. The Controller of Accounts [Factories]
Kirkee Group of Factories,
Ammunition Factory
Khadki Pune 411 003
5. Smt. Shaheen Tamboli
Managalya Co-operative Society Ltd
Flat No.506, Survey No.44,
C.House No.486,
Elphistone Road,
Khadki Pune 411 003 ... Respondents
(By Advocate Smt. H.P.Shah along with
Smt. J.K.Rehel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 &
Shri V.N.Tayade for respondent No.5)
O R D E R
PER: SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application is filed
by a married Muslim lady on 22.07.2011 under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 to claim the benefits of the
family pension and other retiral benefits,
being heirs to the deceased employee Shri
Shaikh Salim Abdul Karim of Ammunition
Factory Khadki, Pune. She is the second
wife of the deceased employee and it is
claimed that the first wife was legally
divorced. Moreover, the first nomination
for family pension earlier filed by the
deceased Shaikh Salim in favour of first
wife was withdrawn by him after his marriage
with the applicant and a second nomination
form has been submitted to the respondents
for Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity way back
on 20.07.2004 clearly indicating the name of
the applicant to be the beneficiary of
DCRG. Another nomination form is also seen
at Annexure R-4, nominating applicant for
family pension.
2. The impugned order at Annexure A-1 dated 01.11.2011 suggest
the ground taken by the respondent-department, who have not yet
granted the family pension and other benefits as per the claim. The
impugned order reads -
“In this connection you are requested to
refer this of ice letter of even no. dt. 03.05.2010.
As late SK. Salim Abdul Karim, Ex. T.No.
QCSAA/235/840278 is survived by two wives it
was decided that terminal benefits will be paid to
the rightful legal heir whoever produces
Succession Certificate from Court of Law.
You are therefore once again requested to
produce Succession Certificate from Court of Law
by making Smt. Shahin a party to the case, to
enable this of ice to take further action in the
matter.”
3. The brief facts of the case are as under
-
Shri Shaikh Salim Abdul Karim was employee
with the respondent-department i.e.
Ammunition Factory, Khadki, Pune, who
expired on 28.01.2010 while in service. His
Death certificate is dated 08.02.2010 as at
Annexure A-2. He had a first wife Shaheen
and second wife Afsar and it is claimed by
the applicant, who is the second wife that
he had given divorce to the first wife. His
nomination for the DCRG dated 14.11.1987 in
favour of first wife Shaheen (Respondent
No.5 in the present OA) is at Annexure R-
8. However, the applicant Afsar has
produced a copy of fresh DCRG nomination
dated 20.07.2004 in favour of herself. This
is produced along with Annexure A-6, which
is actually an admission by the respondents
under RTI to say that they have received
this fresh DCRG nomination in favour of
Afsar. There is also a nomination filled by
deceased Salim for family pension in favour
of Afsar dated 03.11.2006 is at Annexure R-
4, which contains only the name of Afsar and
three children Anees, Naziya and Tehreen.
It is explained by the applicant in OA, para
4.3 that these three children namely Anees,
Naziya and Tehreen are the children of the
first wife but, now staying with Afsar and
Salim. This nomination for family pension
does not mentioned anything about Shaheen.
The applicant has also produced as a part of
Annexure A-1 another document dated
20.07.2004 (page 37 of the OA), which is an
application from the deceased employee to
request that the name of ex-wife Shaheen
should be deleted from his service record as
he has given her divorce on 15.02.2001, with
a further request to add the name of present
wife Afsar. Along with this applications,
he has also enclosed Talaknama, Court order
of settlement, affidavit of Talak, Nikhanama
with Afsar. The applicant has also produced
at Annexure A-6 (collectively) that
nomination for benefit under Government
Employees Group Insurance Scheme and the
nominees are Afsar (wife), Rahmatbi
(mother), Anees (son), Naziya (daughter),
Shabaz (son) and Tehreen (daughter) (it is
explained that Shabaz has died
subsequently). The applicant has also
produced a nomination in her favour for the
purpose of Provident Fund. This nomination
is at page 49 of the OA and it mentions the
name of Anees as a second nominee in case of
invalidity. Thus we find valid nominations
in favour of applicant Afsar for purposes of
Family Pension, DCRG, Provident Fund and
Government Group Insurance, all separately.
4. It is thus seen that approximately six years prior to the deceased
employee, he had properly informed the office about his second
marriage, his divorce from the first wife and filed several nominations
in favour of the second wife Afsar, who is the applicant here. On
behalf of the respondent No.5, the first wife, the learned counsel has
stated that she denies the claim of “talak” with the deceased
employee. However, respondent No.5 is not able to claim that the
nomination filed by the deceased employee is not valid. The
respondent No.5 raises objection to the marriage between the deceased
employee and the applicant. However, she is neither able to explain as
to how it supports her stand of still being the legally married wife, nor
the stand as to how the nomination by the deceased employee in favour
of applicant may be ignored.
5. The learned counsel for Respondent No.5 has relied upon the
judgment in Vidhyadhari and others Vs. Sukhrana Bai and others,
(2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 451, where Vidyadhari and Sukhrana Bai were
each claiming to be the only wife of deceased employee and, therefore,
claiming to be the sole beneficiary. They were demanding succession
certificate for the purpose of movable property. However, the said
case is distinguishable for the reason that the present case will be
governed by the Customary Muslim Law and also by the fact that it is
not a case to settle the succession claim. It is a case to demand family
pension and other retiral benefits, in view of valid nominations in
favour of second wife in supersession of the nomination in favour of
the first wife. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has also
cited the case of Dagdu Chotu Pathan Vs. Rahimbi Dagdu Pathan and
others, 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 604, in which it was held that if Triple Talak
given by Muslim husband at an earlier date followed by the certificate
by the Qazi at a later date does not amount to the dissolution of
marriage from the date on which such a statement of Triple Talak is
made. However, the said judgment does not negate the fact of Talak
by itself. In the present case in particular we also have to go by the
fact that the first nomination was duly cancelled and a fresh
nomination was filled separately for DCRG, Pension, Provident Fund
and Group Insurance benefits, by the employee much prior to his
death.
6. There are three types of claim against the respondent-
department -
Family Pension.
All Retiral benefits, which
would have normally arisen
after retirement in natural
course such as DCRG.
Other Benefits, which arise
out of the service of the
deceased employee before his
death while in service and as
such, different from retiral
benefits. These are claims
such as salary of that month,
etc.
7. The family pension will accrue fully to
the second wife namely the present
applicant. The retiral benefits such as
DCRG, Provident fund and group insurance
will also accrue as per the nomination
forms. Since the first wife had children
and they have been mentioned in nomination
forms, they have a right to share those
benefits alongwith Afsar, the applicant.
Third type of benefits which are not part of
the retiral benefits, but have arisen due to
sudden death of the employee while in
service will have to be identified by the
respondents No.3 and 4 and will have to be
paid to the applicant and the children of
the first wife with a stipulated that they
will be recoverable if Shaheen is able to
get a succession certificate.
8. The impugned order at Annexure A-1 dated 01.11.2011 is
quashed. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are directed to ensure that family
pension is fixed in favour of the applicant and all the relevant orders
regarding all other retiral benefits are passed as per nominations within
next four months. The actual payment should be made to the
concerned beneficiary within two months next, a stipulation as
mentioned supra will be kept for those payments where it is due as
discussed above.
9. With these instructions, the OA is
allowed. No order as to costs.
(Smt. Leena
Me
h
e
n
da
le)
Me
m
b
e
r
(A)
km
Sunday, November 5, 2017
BOMBAY OA No.800/2010
BOMBAY OA No.800/2010
(Draft or final ?? Copied from email recd from office on 29-07-2013)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.: 800 OF 2010
DATED THIS , THE DAY
OF , 2013.
CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER,
MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE, MEMBER
(A)
Mr. Chitranjan Kumar,
R/o B-507-Vaitharna bldg.
Jangid Complex, Mira road (e)
Thane – 401 107 ...
Applicant
(Applicant in person)
VERSUS
1. The Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi – 110 069
2. INTERVIEW BOARD
{Roll No.004162 of CS (M) EXM-PT-
2008}
Through,
Smt. Shashi Uban Tripathi (Member
UPSC),
Chairperson Interview Board,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi – 110 069
3. The Secretary,
Union of India,
The Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions,
North Block,
New Delhi – 110 001 ... Respondents
(By Advocate S/Shri V.S.Masurkar along with
V.Narayanan)
O R D E R
Per: Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A)
This Original Application is filed on
13.10.2010 under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to
challenge the certain part on the selection
procedure of UPSC for All India Services.
2. The applicant appeared in the Civil Service Main Examination-
2008 (CSME-2008). He qualified the preliminary and the main exam
in 2008 and was called on to appear for the Personality Test
Board of UPSC on 23. .2009, he failed to qualify the CSME final.
3. The personality interview was to be held
in English as per the rules that prescribed
that if the main exam is taken in English
language, then the interview will be
necessarily in English. It is pertinent to
note that for those candidates, who write
the CSME in any regional language are allow
to choose the option of either that
language or English. The main choice is
not available for those writing main exam
in English. Following provision existed at
para 27 (Annexure A-1) as regards language
medium for interview -
“Candidates who have opted for English as
language medium for answering papers on Essay,
General Studies and Optional Subjects will have
to take the interview for Personality Test in
English only. However, those candidates who
opted for an Indian language as language medium
for answering papers on Essay, General Studies
and optional subjects have the option of being
interviewed EITHER in English OR in SAME
language which they have opted for the papers on
Essay, General Studies and optional subjects.”
4. The applicant takes up very interestingly, he makes a distinction
between expertise of written language Vs. expertise of spoken
language. A person may be fluent in writing the language because of
various factors, but not necessary fluent in spoken language. He
quotes a social writer Chetan Bhagat, who divide the English
speaking population of India in two groups called E1 and E-2. He
annexed the copy of the speech of Chetan Bhagat dated 19.11.2009
on topic “English for progress conference speech”. He claimed that
the Board did not allowed the applicant to speak in Hindi, even after
repeated request made seeking permission for speaking in “Hindi
medium” as to ensure effective and powerful communication and to
avoid communication gaps. Interview Board asked the applicant “Do
you have problem in speaking language”. “Applicant said yes”
Chairperson said you don't have choice? Speak only English.
However under such constrain, applicant continued to speak “so
called English” for the sake of interview but perhaps not for
“personality test”. The respondent No.2 asked, you did B.A
Geography Hon's in “Hindi medium” it means what that you are not
going to answer our questions? Then they started asking questions,
which applicant was not able to understand, due to technicalities and
use of jargons in English.
5. Peruse the UPSC MA No.160/2012, which is a Reply to MA
No.534/2011 filed by the applicant. It is stated here that the UPSC
appointed an expert committee under the Chairmanship of Professor
B.B.Bhattacharya to examine the issue of language medium in the
personality test in the CSME. The committee gave its report on
10.06.2011. It is mentioned their that the committee has
considered following important aspects -
Parliamentary Resolution on Official
languages 1968, based on which all
the languages in the 8
th Schedule to
the Constitution, were included as
alternative media for Civil Services
(written) Examination. The
Committee also considered its impact
on the language medium of interview
in the Civil Services (Main)
Examination.
To elicit the views of candidates, a
questionnaire was circulated to a
large number of the candidates, who
had qualified in the written part of
the Civil Services (Main)
Examination, 2010 for interview.
The questionnaire was also
circulated to the probationers
undergoing training in the Lal
Bahadur Shastri National Academy of
Administration (LBSNAA), Mussoorie.
In deference to the observations of
the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in
its interim order dated 15.3.2011,
the Committee had also called the
Petitioner of the PIL in question
for a personal hearing in its third
meeting held on 19
th of May, 2011.
6. It is mentioned in the Executive Summary that the Committee
evaluated the current policy regarding the choice of languages to the
candidates at different stages of the examination vis-a-vis the
requisite changes needed in the emerging context, keeping in view
the current as well as future needs of the civil services. It also
examined whether the present policy provided adequate opportunity
to the candidates for self expression at the time of personality test.
Finally, the Committee recommended the following -
*a) The candidates, opting for the Indian
Language medium (other than Hindi) for the
written part of the Civil Services (Main)
Examination, may be given the option of choosing
either the same Indian Language or English or
Hindi as the medium for the interview.
b) The candidates, opting to write the Civil
Services (Main) Examination in English, may be
similarly given the option to be interviewed either
in English, or in Hindi, or in any other Indian
Language opted by them for the compulsory
Indian Language Paper in the written part of the
Civil Services (Main) Examination. The
candidates who are, as per present policy,
exempted from the compulsory Indian Language
paper will have to appear for the interview in
English or Hindi only.
c) Irrespective of the language medium chosen by
the candidate for the interview, all candidates
should also be tested for a minimum level of skill
in spoken English as a functional means of
communication. To this end, the Interview Board
may adopt its own suitable strategy to draw out
the best from the candidate.
d) The Committee has felt that the functional
requirement for the Indian Foreign Service
demands a higher level of skill in English
communication. Therefore, the candidates who
wish to be considered for the Indian Foreign
Service would have to appear for the interview in
English only.*
7. Accordingly, Government issued letter No.22012/28/2010-AIS-I
dated 18.07.2011 to the Secretary, UPSC stating as below -
*I am directed to refer to UPSC's letter
No.23/2/2010-E.I.(B) dated 22.6.2011 on the
subject mentioned above and to convey the
approval of Competent Authority on the
recommendations at (a) and (b) accepted by
the Commission for inclusion in Instruction for
the candidates contained in the Detailed
Application Form for the Civil Services (Main)
Examination, 2011.*
8. {Examine the writing replies of UPSC dated 28.09.2011 (page
90 to 96), 05.01.2012 (page 200 to 203), 26.4.2012 (page 302 to
304), 26.4.2012 (page 305 to 309) still holds good and the OA is
misconceived and hence liable to be dismissed as such.}
(Smt. Leena Mehendale) (Shri
Justice A.K.Basheer) Member (A)
Member (J)
km*
(Draft or final ?? Copied from email recd from office on 29-07-2013)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.: 800 OF 2010
DATED THIS , THE DAY
OF , 2013.
CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER,
MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE, MEMBER
(A)
Mr. Chitranjan Kumar,
R/o B-507-Vaitharna bldg.
Jangid Complex, Mira road (e)
Thane – 401 107 ...
Applicant
(Applicant in person)
VERSUS
1. The Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi – 110 069
2. INTERVIEW BOARD
{Roll No.004162 of CS (M) EXM-PT-
2008}
Through,
Smt. Shashi Uban Tripathi (Member
UPSC),
Chairperson Interview Board,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi – 110 069
3. The Secretary,
Union of India,
The Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions,
North Block,
New Delhi – 110 001 ... Respondents
(By Advocate S/Shri V.S.Masurkar along with
V.Narayanan)
O R D E R
Per: Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A)
This Original Application is filed on
13.10.2010 under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to
challenge the certain part on the selection
procedure of UPSC for All India Services.
2. The applicant appeared in the Civil Service Main Examination-
2008 (CSME-2008). He qualified the preliminary and the main exam
in 2008 and was called on to appear for the Personality Test
Board of UPSC on 23. .2009, he failed to qualify the CSME final.
3. The personality interview was to be held
in English as per the rules that prescribed
that if the main exam is taken in English
language, then the interview will be
necessarily in English. It is pertinent to
note that for those candidates, who write
the CSME in any regional language are allow
to choose the option of either that
language or English. The main choice is
not available for those writing main exam
in English. Following provision existed at
para 27 (Annexure A-1) as regards language
medium for interview -
“Candidates who have opted for English as
language medium for answering papers on Essay,
General Studies and Optional Subjects will have
to take the interview for Personality Test in
English only. However, those candidates who
opted for an Indian language as language medium
for answering papers on Essay, General Studies
and optional subjects have the option of being
interviewed EITHER in English OR in SAME
language which they have opted for the papers on
Essay, General Studies and optional subjects.”
4. The applicant takes up very interestingly, he makes a distinction
between expertise of written language Vs. expertise of spoken
language. A person may be fluent in writing the language because of
various factors, but not necessary fluent in spoken language. He
quotes a social writer Chetan Bhagat, who divide the English
speaking population of India in two groups called E1 and E-2. He
annexed the copy of the speech of Chetan Bhagat dated 19.11.2009
on topic “English for progress conference speech”. He claimed that
the Board did not allowed the applicant to speak in Hindi, even after
repeated request made seeking permission for speaking in “Hindi
medium” as to ensure effective and powerful communication and to
avoid communication gaps. Interview Board asked the applicant “Do
you have problem in speaking language”. “Applicant said yes”
Chairperson said you don't have choice? Speak only English.
However under such constrain, applicant continued to speak “so
called English” for the sake of interview but perhaps not for
“personality test”. The respondent No.2 asked, you did B.A
Geography Hon's in “Hindi medium” it means what that you are not
going to answer our questions? Then they started asking questions,
which applicant was not able to understand, due to technicalities and
use of jargons in English.
5. Peruse the UPSC MA No.160/2012, which is a Reply to MA
No.534/2011 filed by the applicant. It is stated here that the UPSC
appointed an expert committee under the Chairmanship of Professor
B.B.Bhattacharya to examine the issue of language medium in the
personality test in the CSME. The committee gave its report on
10.06.2011. It is mentioned their that the committee has
considered following important aspects -
Parliamentary Resolution on Official
languages 1968, based on which all
the languages in the 8
th Schedule to
the Constitution, were included as
alternative media for Civil Services
(written) Examination. The
Committee also considered its impact
on the language medium of interview
in the Civil Services (Main)
Examination.
To elicit the views of candidates, a
questionnaire was circulated to a
large number of the candidates, who
had qualified in the written part of
the Civil Services (Main)
Examination, 2010 for interview.
The questionnaire was also
circulated to the probationers
undergoing training in the Lal
Bahadur Shastri National Academy of
Administration (LBSNAA), Mussoorie.
In deference to the observations of
the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in
its interim order dated 15.3.2011,
the Committee had also called the
Petitioner of the PIL in question
for a personal hearing in its third
meeting held on 19
th of May, 2011.
6. It is mentioned in the Executive Summary that the Committee
evaluated the current policy regarding the choice of languages to the
candidates at different stages of the examination vis-a-vis the
requisite changes needed in the emerging context, keeping in view
the current as well as future needs of the civil services. It also
examined whether the present policy provided adequate opportunity
to the candidates for self expression at the time of personality test.
Finally, the Committee recommended the following -
*a) The candidates, opting for the Indian
Language medium (other than Hindi) for the
written part of the Civil Services (Main)
Examination, may be given the option of choosing
either the same Indian Language or English or
Hindi as the medium for the interview.
b) The candidates, opting to write the Civil
Services (Main) Examination in English, may be
similarly given the option to be interviewed either
in English, or in Hindi, or in any other Indian
Language opted by them for the compulsory
Indian Language Paper in the written part of the
Civil Services (Main) Examination. The
candidates who are, as per present policy,
exempted from the compulsory Indian Language
paper will have to appear for the interview in
English or Hindi only.
c) Irrespective of the language medium chosen by
the candidate for the interview, all candidates
should also be tested for a minimum level of skill
in spoken English as a functional means of
communication. To this end, the Interview Board
may adopt its own suitable strategy to draw out
the best from the candidate.
d) The Committee has felt that the functional
requirement for the Indian Foreign Service
demands a higher level of skill in English
communication. Therefore, the candidates who
wish to be considered for the Indian Foreign
Service would have to appear for the interview in
English only.*
7. Accordingly, Government issued letter No.22012/28/2010-AIS-I
dated 18.07.2011 to the Secretary, UPSC stating as below -
*I am directed to refer to UPSC's letter
No.23/2/2010-E.I.(B) dated 22.6.2011 on the
subject mentioned above and to convey the
approval of Competent Authority on the
recommendations at (a) and (b) accepted by
the Commission for inclusion in Instruction for
the candidates contained in the Detailed
Application Form for the Civil Services (Main)
Examination, 2011.*
8. {Examine the writing replies of UPSC dated 28.09.2011 (page
90 to 96), 05.01.2012 (page 200 to 203), 26.4.2012 (page 302 to
304), 26.4.2012 (page 305 to 309) still holds good and the OA is
misconceived and hence liable to be dismissed as such.}
(Smt. Leena Mehendale) (Shri
Justice A.K.Basheer) Member (A)
Member (J)
km*
Bom OA 444/2010 on ?????
Bom OA 444/2010 on ?????
(Draft received from dictation given to Bala)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI,
CAMP AT GOA.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.444/2010
This the day of , 2011
Coram : Hon'ble Shri Justice V.K.Bali,
Chairman,
Hon'ble Smt.Leena Mehandale,
Member (A).
Arezhi Sreedharan,
Flat No.1,
Villa Bambina,
Mamgor Hill,
Vasco-da-Gama,
Goa – 403 802. ...Applicant.
(By Advocate Shri G.Vijaychandran)
V/s.
1) Union of India through
The Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Room No.198,
South Block,
New delhi – 110 011.
2) Chief Personnel,
Directorate of Civil Personnel
Services, Integrated HQRS,
Ministry of Defence (Navy),
Sena Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 011.
3) Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief,
Headquarters,
Western Naval Command,
Shahid Bhagatsingh Road,
Mumbai – 400 001.
4) The Flag Officer Goa Area,
Headquarters, Goa Naval Area,
Vasco-da-Gama,
Goa – 403 802. ...Respondents.
(By Advocate Shri M.Amonkar)
: O R D E R (ORAL) :
{Leena Mehandale, Member (A)}
This OA is filed on 24.6.2010
under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are
that, the applicant who joined his
service in the Civilian Section of
Indian Navy on 27.5.1969 was to
superannuate on 30.6.2009 on attaining
the age of 60 years. During the earlier
part of his service, his date of
increment was falling on 1
st May. His
last promotion received w.e.f. 26
th May,
2008 to the post of Office
Superintendent with respect to which his
next due increment would have been on 1
st
May, 2009. However, in pursuance of the
VIth Pay Commission recommendations, his
pay in the rank of Assistant was fixed
at Rs.12,090/- with Grade Pay of
Rs.4,200/- in the Pay Band – 2 of
Rs.9,300-34,800 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and the
next date of increment w.e.f. 1.7.2006
as opted by the applicant. Thus, even
though the applicant was promoted as
Office Superintendent on 26.5.2008 and
his pay was fixed at Rs.13,090/-
notionally with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/-
w.e.f. 25.5.2008. The date of next
increment remained as 1
st July.
Accordingly his pay was refixed at
Rs.14,150/- w.e.f. 1.7.2008. Both the
parties are in agreement about this
factual position.
3. It is, thus clear that, the
applicant got his last increment on
1.7.2008 bringing his pay to Rs.14,150/-
w.e.f. 1.7.2008 and he would have got
his next increment on 1.7.2009. But, he
retired just on the previous day viz.
30.6.2009 after having rendered one
complete year's service with that pay.
4. It is the case of the applicant that
he is entitled to an increment for the
service rendered from 1.7.2008 to
30.6.2009. Had he continued in the
service for just one day, he would have
been able to claim his increment for the
service rendered in future i.e. beyond
1.7.2009. However, the applicant would
like to make a distinction between the
entitlement for increment which is in
respect of rendering future service and
the right to pensionary benefit which is
in respect of the service rendered in
past. This is a peculiar case where the
applicant has rendered one complete year
of service in a particular grade, but
his pensionary benefit would be counted
only as if he had not completed the full
one year service. The argument from the
applicant's side is that since
pensionary benefits are eligible for the
reason of past service rendered,
therefore the applicant should be held
as entitled to the pensionary benefits
as if he had been granted his increment
which was due on 1.7.2009.
5. The argument of the Respondents was
that the Rule for next increment is very
clear and he has not been given
increment on 1.7.2009 as he had already
superannuated from the service on
30.6.2009. The increment accrues only
from 1
st day following that on which it
is earned.
6. Thus, we find that a very fine
distinction is sought to be made in this
case. The applicant claims that the
increment is earned by him at the end of
30.6.2009, whereas the Respondents claim
that the increment accrues only on
1.7.2009. Thus, it is the question that
while the benefits are earned by way of
past one year's service on 30.6.2009.
But the accrual of increment will happen
only on 1.7.2009. The Rule is very
clear that in case he continues in
service further than 1.7.2009, then his
salary will be drawn by giving the
effect of the increment that accrued on
1.7.2009. But, this Rule does not
specifically say anything about the
pensionary benefits which are arising
out of the service rendered and
increment earned which has happened on
30.6.2009.
7. In view of this finer distinction
made out by the applicant and also
following the principles of natural
justice, viz. that when the Rules are
silent on the particular question then
they may be interpreted in such a way as
to give rightful benefit to the
applicant. Here we find that the
applicant has rendered service to the
Government for more than 40 years and in
view of the last one years's service he
has defenitely rendered his service for
one complete year in the scale of
Rs.14,150/- given to him on 1.7.2008.
Hence, we have no hesitation to allow
the application. Ordered accordingly.
(LEENA MEHANDALE) (V.K.BALI)
MEMBER (A) CHAIRMAN
B.
(Draft received from dictation given to Bala)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI,
CAMP AT GOA.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.444/2010
This the day of , 2011
Coram : Hon'ble Shri Justice V.K.Bali,
Chairman,
Hon'ble Smt.Leena Mehandale,
Member (A).
Arezhi Sreedharan,
Flat No.1,
Villa Bambina,
Mamgor Hill,
Vasco-da-Gama,
Goa – 403 802. ...Applicant.
(By Advocate Shri G.Vijaychandran)
V/s.
1) Union of India through
The Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Room No.198,
South Block,
New delhi – 110 011.
2) Chief Personnel,
Directorate of Civil Personnel
Services, Integrated HQRS,
Ministry of Defence (Navy),
Sena Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 011.
3) Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief,
Headquarters,
Western Naval Command,
Shahid Bhagatsingh Road,
Mumbai – 400 001.
4) The Flag Officer Goa Area,
Headquarters, Goa Naval Area,
Vasco-da-Gama,
Goa – 403 802. ...Respondents.
(By Advocate Shri M.Amonkar)
: O R D E R (ORAL) :
{Leena Mehandale, Member (A)}
This OA is filed on 24.6.2010
under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are
that, the applicant who joined his
service in the Civilian Section of
Indian Navy on 27.5.1969 was to
superannuate on 30.6.2009 on attaining
the age of 60 years. During the earlier
part of his service, his date of
increment was falling on 1
st May. His
last promotion received w.e.f. 26
th May,
2008 to the post of Office
Superintendent with respect to which his
next due increment would have been on 1
st
May, 2009. However, in pursuance of the
VIth Pay Commission recommendations, his
pay in the rank of Assistant was fixed
at Rs.12,090/- with Grade Pay of
Rs.4,200/- in the Pay Band – 2 of
Rs.9,300-34,800 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and the
next date of increment w.e.f. 1.7.2006
as opted by the applicant. Thus, even
though the applicant was promoted as
Office Superintendent on 26.5.2008 and
his pay was fixed at Rs.13,090/-
notionally with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/-
w.e.f. 25.5.2008. The date of next
increment remained as 1
st July.
Accordingly his pay was refixed at
Rs.14,150/- w.e.f. 1.7.2008. Both the
parties are in agreement about this
factual position.
3. It is, thus clear that, the
applicant got his last increment on
1.7.2008 bringing his pay to Rs.14,150/-
w.e.f. 1.7.2008 and he would have got
his next increment on 1.7.2009. But, he
retired just on the previous day viz.
30.6.2009 after having rendered one
complete year's service with that pay.
4. It is the case of the applicant that
he is entitled to an increment for the
service rendered from 1.7.2008 to
30.6.2009. Had he continued in the
service for just one day, he would have
been able to claim his increment for the
service rendered in future i.e. beyond
1.7.2009. However, the applicant would
like to make a distinction between the
entitlement for increment which is in
respect of rendering future service and
the right to pensionary benefit which is
in respect of the service rendered in
past. This is a peculiar case where the
applicant has rendered one complete year
of service in a particular grade, but
his pensionary benefit would be counted
only as if he had not completed the full
one year service. The argument from the
applicant's side is that since
pensionary benefits are eligible for the
reason of past service rendered,
therefore the applicant should be held
as entitled to the pensionary benefits
as if he had been granted his increment
which was due on 1.7.2009.
5. The argument of the Respondents was
that the Rule for next increment is very
clear and he has not been given
increment on 1.7.2009 as he had already
superannuated from the service on
30.6.2009. The increment accrues only
from 1
st day following that on which it
is earned.
6. Thus, we find that a very fine
distinction is sought to be made in this
case. The applicant claims that the
increment is earned by him at the end of
30.6.2009, whereas the Respondents claim
that the increment accrues only on
1.7.2009. Thus, it is the question that
while the benefits are earned by way of
past one year's service on 30.6.2009.
But the accrual of increment will happen
only on 1.7.2009. The Rule is very
clear that in case he continues in
service further than 1.7.2009, then his
salary will be drawn by giving the
effect of the increment that accrued on
1.7.2009. But, this Rule does not
specifically say anything about the
pensionary benefits which are arising
out of the service rendered and
increment earned which has happened on
30.6.2009.
7. In view of this finer distinction
made out by the applicant and also
following the principles of natural
justice, viz. that when the Rules are
silent on the particular question then
they may be interpreted in such a way as
to give rightful benefit to the
applicant. Here we find that the
applicant has rendered service to the
Government for more than 40 years and in
view of the last one years's service he
has defenitely rendered his service for
one complete year in the scale of
Rs.14,150/- given to him on 1.7.2008.
Hence, we have no hesitation to allow
the application. Ordered accordingly.
(LEENA MEHANDALE) (V.K.BALI)
MEMBER (A) CHAIRMAN
B.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)