HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH.BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRtDHIRENDRA IVilSHRA. & HON'BLE SH% M^NSNDRA MQHAN SHR!VASTAVA...y Writ Petition (sl No. 3068 of2009 Petitioners : J.S.Chouhan Versus Respondents : Unionofindjaand others. :(-' ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION JUDGE ^•1.2010 HON'BLE SHR3 IVSANINDRA iVIOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Jude POST FOR ORDER OH^^JXNUARY.2010 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DivisionBench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra. & Hon'ble Shri Manindra IVSohan Shrivastava. JJ Writ Petition fsYNo. 3068 of 2009 Petitioners 1. ,-\ 2. 3. 4. 5. Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. J.S. Chouhan, age about 64 years, S/o Late NS Chouhan, Retired Mail Guard, SEC Rly, Raipur, R/o 38, Nav Jeevan Society, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur(CG) Jageshwar Singh, aged 63 years, S/o Shri Anandi Prasad, Retired Driver Grade A, SEC Rly, Raipur, R/o C/o Mhd. Suleman Dindhayal Upadhyay Nagar,nearRjaFloorMill, Gudiyari,Raipur(CG) Md. Suieman, aged 63 years, S/o Shri Abdut Salam (Retd. Goods Driver, SEC Rly) R/o Dindayal Upahyay Nagar, near Raja Floor Mill, Gudhiyari, Raipur(CG) Nar Singh, aged 64 years,S/o Shri Bisahu Ram Retired Passenger Driver, SEC Rty, Kookari Talab, behind loco Shed, SEC Rly, Raipur. Murlidhar Khelkar, aged64years,S/o Shri Madhav Rao, Retired Goods Driver.SEC Rly. BYM NEAR NAVIN Kanya Shala Sukarvari Bazar, Gudhiyari, Raipur. Union of India, Through the Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. General Manager, Sough East Central Railway, Bilaspur. Chief Personnel Officer, South East Centrai Railway, Bilaspur. Divisional Railway Manager, South East Centrai Railway, Raipur. Central Administrative Tribunat, Jabaipur Bench, Circuit Bench at Bilaspur (CG) Present ShriJ.S. Bajpai, counselforthe petitioners. Shri Abhishek Sintia, counset for respondents No. 1 to 4/Raiiways. M.iL.i /M: ^ QRDER (Passed on35r3anuary, 2010) Per Dhirendra MishraJ 1. The petitioners;bythe instant p^tition.have prayed forquashing ofthe order dated 31st July, 2008 passed in OA. Nb.619/06 by fhe Central Administrative Tribunai, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur (in short "Tribunal") and direction to the respondents to pay them retirai dues as per circuiars of the respondents with interest @ 18%. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that they retired as Maie Guard/Goods Driver on various dates between 30th April, 2003 and 29th February, 2004. Respondent No.2 paid Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (in short "DCRG") @ 30% of the basic salary paid at the retirem6nt, though they ought to have paid @ 55% as per Circular dated 21st July, 2004 (Annexure P/9) with interest @ 12%. When their representetjon against the above payment was not considered, they appiied before the Permanent Lok Adalat, constituted under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1997. Lok Adalat vide its order dated 21,8.2005 (Annexure P/11) held that the petitioners were entitled for enhanced DCRG @ 55%. However, when the order of Lok Adalat was not imptemented by the respondents, the petitloners filed an original application before the Tribunal and the sam^ was dismissed by the impugned order. 3. Shri J.S. Bajpai, iearned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the respondents were legally bound to comply with the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat, accordingto whichthey were entitled for DCRG @ 55% of the revised pay scale. 4. On the other hand, Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/Raiiways, submitted that the petitjoners retired before issuance ofCircular dated 21.7.2004. The said circularprovides for merger of Dearness Aliowance equivaient to 50% ofthe basic pay with basic pay w.e.f. 1st Aprii, 2004 and the provisions of the said circular were not applicable to the case of the petitioners. The petitioners have been paid pension, DCRG and other retiral dues strictly in accordance with the instructipns applicable to them as per rules and instr.uctions issued after 1.1.1996, which has been mentioned as 1.1.2006 due to typographical error in Para-4 of the Retum. Referri'ng to Para-4 of the Return and Annexure R/2, it was submitted that DCRG payable to the petitioners was calculated on the basis of last basic pay plus 55% Running AIIowance plus Dearness AIIowance (calculated on basicipay plus 30% thereof). Citing the case of petitioner Shri J.S. Chouhan, itwas argued that thesaid petitioner was drawing last basic salary at Rs.9,000/-. He was entitled for Running Ailowance @ 55% i.e.Rs.4,950/- and existing DA @ 55% w.e.f. 1st January, 2003 i.e. Rs.6,435/-. Calculation for DCRG was made by multiplyingthe samejwith 16.5 and a total of Rs.3,36,353/- was paid to him as Retirement Gratuity. Calculations in the case of other petitioners were also made accordingly. The above calculation has not been rebutted by the petitioners and therefore.contention of th©petitioners that they were paid DCRG @ 30% of their last basic salary. is factually incorrect. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. From perusai of the impugned order of the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal, considering the ab6ve factual aspect that for calculating Retirement Gratuity, Running Allowance @ 55% of the basic pay has been added and only in case of Dearness AIIowance.the rate has been taken as 30%, which is in consonance with the rules and instructions issued by the Railways from time to time, has rejected the application with an obsen/ation thatthe petitioners could not point outany illegality or irregularity in the method of calculating pension/family pension, DCRG and ieave encashment. The petitioners have not controverted the affidavit filed by the Railways regarding the mode of calculation of DCRG payable to the petitioners as they have not filed any rejoinder affidavit controvertinQ the aforesaid fact. During the course of hearing also, the above contention was not controverted. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to establish that they were not paid DCRG and teave encashment in accordance with the rules and circulars issued by the respondents from time to time. There is no substance in this petition, the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingiy, dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Manin' Sd/- draMohanSbrivastava Jude ^ i\ •