The Union of India which was under a statutory obligation to settle and decide his retrial benefits and other claims by 31st July, 1984 failed to discharge those statutory obligations and his claims remained unsettled The appellant had to undergo tremendous hardship as his claim for encashment of earned leave, increment arrears, special pay due, L.TC etc.
200/ by way of interest on delayed payment of death cum retirement gratuity and P.F. as full companypensation.
No companynter was however, filed and the claim remained unrebutted.
An order for payment of pension was issued on 24.8.1984 and the pension amount was Paid to him On 11.19.1984.
The D.C.R.G. was paid to the appellant on 10.12.1984 and G.P.F. on 1.2.1985.
He served the department in various capacities and superannuated on 31st.
New Delhi.
July, 1984 when he was serving as an Officiating Assistant Director General.
However, the Central Administrative Tribunal through the order impugned in this appeal rejected the application of the appellant and awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.
Leave granted This is rather an unfortunate case.
the appellant jointed his service as an Engineering Supervisor in the year 1946.
was barred by time.
Government of India, New Delhi.
in 1987.
remained unsettled and his numerous representations to the department also evoked numberresponse.
The appellant thereafter served a numberice under Section 80 C.P.C. claiming his dues together with interest and companypensation.
Ultimately the appellant filed an original application in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench.
Even that did number make the respondents move.
department of Telecommunications.
On numberice being issued in the Special Leave Petition, the respondents filed their companynter alongwith some documents in this Court denying the claim and pleading that his claim for encashment of earned leave increment arrears etc.
The Tribunal issued numberice to the respondents and granted numerous opportunities to the Union of India to file the companynter and meet the claims as set up by the appellant.
The appellant approached this Court.
By an order dated 10th April, 1995 we directed the General Manager respondent No.
