In a significant legal battle, the Delhi High Court has issued a ruling favoring the Junior Officer in a case against CPWD, ensuring the entitlement to pro-rata pension benefits. The Court’s decision marks a significant victory for the Junior Officer in their long-standing dispute with CPWD over retirement benefits.
Facts
- The petitioner was initially appointed as Section Officer/Junior Officer in CPWD on 13.09.1962.
- Continuing his service, he joined Western Railway on 16.02.1963.
- He was later selected by UPSC as an Assistant Engineer (Civil).
- His petition in No 1500 of 1994 was dismissed by the Apex Court on 08.08.1994.
- Despite repeated representations, his request for transfer of retirement benefits on a pro-rata basis was dismissed on multiple occasions.
- His review petition was dismissed on 04.12.2009 by the Tribunal.
- Both the review petition and the curative petition were also dismissed on 23.11.2010 and 15.02.2011 respectively.
Arguments
- The petitioner had availed extraordinary leave without medical certificates for 175 days between 12.09.1974 to 05.03.1976.
- The respondents excluded this period while computing the petitioner’s total period of service for pro-rata pensionary benefits.
- The petitioner approached the Tribunal seeking condonation of delay in filing the O.A. and to set aside the respondent’s communication.
- The Tribunal accepted the petitioner’s claim but granted liberty to the respondents to verify if the petitioner was on leave during the excluded period.
- The respondents calculated the petitioner’s past service as 9 years 7 months and 8 days, different from the petitioner’s claim of 13 years and 8 months.
- The respondents reduced the payment towards the petitioner’s pro-rata retiral benefits from Rs. 7.18 lacs to Rs. 11,540/- based on their calculations.
- The petitioner sought information under the RTI Act regarding the reasons for the reduced payment.
- Both parties agree that the respondents were required to transfer the amount towards the pro-rata pensionary benefits to the Delhi University.
Analysis
- Petitioner agrees to exclude 175 days of extraordinary leave from his 13 years 8 months of service.
- Petitioner disputes the arbitrary reduction of his service to 9 years 7 months and 8 days by the respondent.
- Court unable to find any reason for respondent’s arbitrary reduction of service period.
- Respondent’s counsel fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the reduction.
Decision
- The petitioner’s service to be counted as 13 years 2 months and 15 days, not 9 years 7 months and 8 days.
- The petitioner unjustly denied pro-rata retiral benefits, to receive interest at 6% per annum from 01.07.1998.
- Respondents to pay pro-rata pensionary benefits based on 13 years 2 months and 15 days of service.
- Tribunal decision set aside, writ petition allowed.
Case Title: U.V. UTTAMCHANDANI Vs. UOI AND ORS (2024:DHC:3927-DB)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-2792/2018
