K. Haripal, Member J
1. Applicant is a retired Senior Private Secretary from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin. She had commenced service as Lower Division
Clerk in the Railways on 23.12.1982. Then on the advice of the Union Public Service Commission, she was appointed as Stenographer Grade-C on
31.07.1986 in the Ministry of Defence, in the Army Headquarters. While working as such, she was given 1st MACP on 09.08.1999. Then she was
regularly promoted as Private Secretary on 10.06.2002. While so, she was appointed as Private Secretary in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Cochin, on deputation. Thereafter, she was absorbed in the service of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. On 01.09.2008 she was granted 2nd
MACP. She was then promoted as Senior Private Secretary and retired on superannuation on 31.07.2021. The grievance of the applicant is that even
after a lapse of one year and eight months she has not been granted retiral benefits so far; only amount under the GPF account was released to her.
No disciplinary or judicial proceeding is pending against her. There is no justification in denying the retirement benefits like pension, gratuity, leave
encashment, group insurance etc. Those benefits are her property falling within the scope of Article 300A of the Constitution, which cannot be taken
away except by authority of law. Delay in granting such benefits is illegal and is directly attributable to the respondents.
2. Thus she seeks a declaration and direction to the respondents to release the retirement benefits with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
01.08.2021.
3. Respondents have admitted the official profile of the applicant. According to them, with the intention of sanctioning pensionary benefits on time, her
pension papers were forwarded to the Pay and Accounts Office, New Delhi on 04.05.2021 itself. But the office returned the papers with certain
observations seeking clarification. The 2nd respondent gave the clarification, but the Pay and Accounts Office was not satisfied with the same;
accordingly, Annexure-A1/R1(D) order was issued by the President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, formally refixing her pay with effect from
19.09.2009. Again, the pension papers were returned by the 4th respondent through Annexure-R1(F) incorporating certain observations. Meanwhile,
the applicant also made Annexure-A2/R1(G) representation. In the light of the observations, the service book and other papers were forwarded to the
Defence Ministry, following which Annexure-R1(K) order was passed and clarification was again sought from the Defence Ministry. In response to
the same, Annexure-R1(M) communication was sent sticking to Annexure-R1(J) communication sent on 13.05.2022.
4. According to the respondents, meanwhile, as directed by this Tribunal, provisional pension with arrears has been released to the applicant. Monthly
provisional pension is being regularly paid. According to them, pension papers were forwarded to the 4th respondent well in advance, that the applicant
is also aware that due to discrepancy in the pay fixation, her pension could not be fixed and steps are being taken to finalise the proceedings. It is
further stated that the delay was occurred due to unintentional circumstances, which is not attributable to any specific act or omission on the part of
the respondents. Referring to Rule 65 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, it is submitted that subject to the conditions, interest will be considered to be
paid to the applicant for delayed payment.
5. I heard the learned counsel for the applicant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
6. There is no dispute on the service profile of the applicant. She had commenced service as Lower Division Clerk in the Railways and then on the
advice of the Union Public Service Commission, she was appointed in the Army Headquarters on 31.07.1986. While so, she was granted MACP.
Documents produced by the parties clearly indicate that there was some anomaly in the matter of fixation of her pay while granting MACP in 2008. It
appears that such anomaly was not noticed till the papers were processed by the 4th respondent for grant of pension.
7. The applicant approached this Tribunal after about one year and eight months of her retirement on superannuation. At that time except amounts at
credit in her GPF account, even provisional pension was not granted. As agreed by both sides, no judicial or disciplinary proceeding is pending against
her. That means, there is no legal impediment in granting retiral benefits. It is also evident from Annexure-R1(A) that the papers were sent to the 4th
respondent well in advance on 04.05.2021. The 4th respondent noticed the anomaly in fixing pay at the time of granting MACP; that anomaly
continued till the date of retirement. It appears that the competent authority among the respondents is unable to resolve the controversy and thus the
delay persists. The grant of pension is entangled in a series of correspondences made among the respondents.
8. It is not necessary for this Tribunal to probe into the details of the anomaly. Whatever may be the reason, it is the fact that fixation of pension is
unduly delayed for no fault of the applicant. Even after lapse of two years and five months from the date of superannuation, amounts due to her are
not fixed or released. It is unfortunate to note that when the applicant moved this Tribunal after one year and eight months of retirement, her prayer
for grant of even provisional pension was not considered. Provisional pension was granted only at the intervention of the Tribunal. Even then the
respondents took a dogmatic stand that she should execute an indemnity bond for releasing the amount. Now provisional pension is being paid. Still the
controversy is not resolved and missives are being exchanged from one office to another seeking clarifications on the erroneous fixation of pay done
way back in 2006.
9. Such a delay cannot be countenanced anymore. Therefore, without going into the explanations for the delay, I direct the respondents to finalise the
proceedings and issue orders fixing the quantum of pension of the applicant at the earliest. The respondents shall see that the entire pensionary
benefits shall be released to the applicant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that she
will be paid interest as provided in Rule 65 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. If the amounts are not released within 60 days, as aforesaid, the
applicant shall be paid interest at 12% per annum from the date of retirement.
10. The Original Application is disposed of as above. I make no order as to costs.
(Dated, this the 8th January, 2024)
