Central Administrative Tribunal - DelhiShri Ravinder Kumar vs Union Of India on 28 January, 2011Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi

O.A. No.3043/2010

Friday, this the 28th day of January 2011

Honble Dr. K.B. Suresh, Member (J)

Shri Ravinder Kumar
r/o H.No.22-D, Railway Officers Enclave
Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi-21
..Applicant
(Applicant in person)

Versus

1.	Union of India 
	Through Secretary,
	Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India
	North Block, Central Secretariat
	New Delhi-1

2.	State of Himachal Pradesh
	Through Home Secretary 
	Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla 171002

3.	The Accountant General (A&E)
	Himachal Pradesh, Shimla 171003
..Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. H Jayashree and Ms. Vandana for
     Shri A K Bhardwaj for respondent No.1 
     Shri Abhishek Sood for respondent No.2  
     Shri Shiladitya Goswami for Shri Gaurang Kanth for
     respondent No.3)

O R D E R (ORAL)Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2.	The applicant was appointed in Indian Police Service in 1977. He was allocated to Himachal Pradesh cadre. On 22.3.2004, respondent No.2 in pursuance of the order of respondent No.1 compulsorily retired him. He thereafter filed OA-2207/2005 and in compliance of the directions of the Tribunal, he was reinstated back in service vide order dated 20.12.2007. Following the order of respondent No.1 dated 27.5.2008, the applicant joined duty on 12.6.2008 at Himachal Pradesh.3.	It would appear that on 22.8.2009 respondent No.2 once again compulsorily retired the applicant on the order of respondent No.1 dated 13.8.2009. The applicant is aggrieved by this inaction of the respondents, as his pension and other lawful payments due to him were held up for no justifiable reasons, and therefore, he has approached the Tribunal through the present OA.4.	Respondent No.1 had filed a counter affidavit wherein it is claimed that it is respondent No.2, who is authorized to sanction the payment of DCRG and other pensionary benefits to the applicant since he was borne in the cadre. They would say that they are to be treated only as a formal party and have nothing more to add in the matter.5.	Respondent No.3 would submit that on his reinstatement in service, the applicant was deemed to have been placed under suspension apparently from the date of compulsory retirement on 5.3.2004 till the date of reinstatement of service on 27.5.2008. They would say that on examination of his service book, the necessary entries of deemed suspension period, service period, remittance of the amount of pension, gratuity and leave encashment already received at the time of retirement on 22.3.2004 were not found recorded in the service book. Therefore, the pension case was returned to the Department and a copy was apparently endorsed to the applicant as well. They would further say that they require a direction from the Government of India to determine whether the concerned period is qualified for pension or not since it was they, who had initiated the action on the suspension of the applicant.6.	But the Tribunal had quashed the order in OA-2207/2005 on the ground that the copy of the advice of the CVC was not provided to the applicant, which has prejudiced the defence of the applicant. Therefore, it has an effect of quashing the orders in its entirety and nothing would survive for a fresh determination for any other authority other than the appellate authority, as provided under judicial review underArticle 227of the Constitution of India. Since that has become final, the matter is now settled.7.	As a retired person had been running from pillar to post for no ostensible reason, in the context of the pleadings of the parties and on the basis of their oral persuasion, the following directions are being issued to the respondents:i)	Respondent No.2 shall finalize all aspects of payment of pension, commuted value of pension, DCRG and other benefits due to the applicant, within a period of two months next and make it available to the applicant along with interest @ 9% within the time frame,ii)	If such payment exceeds the above said period of two months, interest shall be payable from the beginning @ 24%; andiii)	Respondent No.2 shall pay a cost of Rs.5000/- to the applicant.8.  	The OA is allowed to the extent noted above.( Dr. K.B. Suresh )
Member (Judicial)

/sunil/