PETITIONER: Wg WP. gS.) No.566 of 2008 A. Aloysius RESPONDENT: —Versus— Union of India POST FOR‘ORDER ON H —1 1—2008/ /’7 ,/ / / I S&;wx‘sm? “x . dY Qhxfe“s$dge HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGA§H AT BILASPUR W3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (8.) No.566 of 2008 PETITIONER: A. Aloysius (Aged- About 72 Years), S/ o Late Antonsy Deruz, Retd. Station Superintendent, R/o H. No.1/1945, G.E. Road, P.O. Tatibandh, Tah. 85 Distt. RAIPUR, Chhattisgarh. ~Versus- RESPONDENTS: Union of India, Through:— 1. General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (CG) 2. Divisional Railway Manager,. South East Central Railway, Raipur (CG) 3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway, Raipur (CG) (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Present: Petitioner in person. Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on lvgmoyember, 2008) ’Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1. The petitioner retired on 31$ August, 1994 while serving as Station Superintendent at Kumhari Railway Station. He filed Original Application No.723 of 1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for ' short ‘the Tribunal’) making grievances that though he was senior to one Shri M. Gopalan as Assistant Station Master, he was not promoted as Deputy Station Superintendent whereas, his junior was given above promotions with effect from lst August, 1982/83. He was also given promotion to the post of Station Superintendent Grade-I with effect from lst w 9 March, 1993. The Tribunal vide order dated 25—7—2003 held that the petitioner being senior to Shri M. Gopalan was also entitled for promotion with effect from the date on which his next junior Shri M. Gopalan was promoted with all consequential benefits. 2. The respondents impugned the order of the Tribunal by way of filing Writ Petition No.450/2004 before this Court and this Court Vide order dated 12th May, 2005 disposed of the petition with following observations:— “Respondent No.1 has retired from service way back on 31.08.1994 and it will not be proper for this Court to reopen the case of respondent No.1 to promotion after his retirement at this stage. The matter shoul be closed and respondent No.1 should be given all his financial benefits as per the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. No.732 of 1998 dated 25.07.2003 and in accordance with the order dated 31. 10.2003 passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, South East. Central Railway, Raipur; quoted above. The amount of Rs.1,18,635/— (Rupees one lakh eighteen thousand six hundred and thirty five only) deposited with the Registry of this Court towards the said financial benefits together with interest, if any, accrued on the said deposit may be withdrawn by respondent No.1. We make it clear that the case of respondent No.1 will not be treated as a precedent while deciding the claim f all other officers who may be placed in the same position as respondent No. 1.” 3. The petitioner also filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20745/2005 against the order of the High Court. This order was also impugned by the Union of India vide SLP (C) No.26017/2005. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide common order dated 18-7—2006 while dismissing the SLP preferred by Union of India disposed of the appeal of the petitioner with following observations:- ‘g d s o “We flnd no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. However, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India submits that all the benefits accrued to the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, as confirmed by the High Court, will be made available to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. The statement of the learned Additional Solicitor General is recorded.” Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents were duty bound to comply with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court within 3 months from 18-7-2006 by accurately implementing the judgment delivered by the Tribunal, which was subsequently affirmed by the High Court. However, the same was not complied with. His constitutional right of receiving timely pension as guaranteed under Article 366(17) of the Constitution of India has been violated. He was not paid monthly pension as claimed by the respondents in compliance of the order of the Tribunal which is borne out from various memos (Annexures—P/2l, P/23 and P/24) addressed by Dena Bank from where the pension mount is disbursed to the petitioner as per pension payment order issued by the respondents. The petitioner was also entitled for interest @ 20% per annum on the amount of pension which has been illegally withheld by the respondents. . Learned counsel for the respondents contended that this petition is not maintainable on the ground that the order of the Tribunal, which has been subsequently confirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, has been duly complied with. There was no direction either by the Tribunal or by the Superior Courts for payment of interest @ 20% per annum. The writ petition for enforcement of the order of the Tribunal is not maintainable. ; “ The petitioner has statutory and efficacious alternative remedy provided under the Administrative Tribunals Act for redressal of his grievances. The petition has been filed after more than 21/2 years from the disposal of SLP and, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The accounts furnished by the respondents towards payment of pension to the petitioner clearly reveal that all the due payments have already been made. Communications received by the petitioner from Dena Bank (Annexures—P/ 23 85 P/25) pleaded in para 5.13 of the petition are not elevant, particularly, when the petitioner has not arrayed Dena Bank as respondent. A cheque on different heads towards arrears for a sum of Rs.1,18,635/- dated 15m October, 2004 has already been deposited by the controlling agency i.e. accounts department after due verification in the High Court and the same has been Withdrawn by the petitioner after the writ petition was decided in his favour by the High Court. The petitioner filed Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the High Court claiming arrears to the tune of Rs.80 lakhs on different heads with compound interest and the same was disposed of with an observation that ‘We find no reason to intenfere with the impugned judgment’. 6. The petitioner has tried to take undue advantage of inadvertent deposit of Rs.3,42,541/— as amount of arrears in the account of the petitioner on 21- 11-2006, which was immediately withdrawn. A threadbare enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer of the respondents, who in consultation with the officers of Dena Bank examined calculation of pension arrears payable to the petitioner afresh (Annexure—R/6). The Railways and Dena Bank jointly prepared statement of authenticated account (Annexure—R/7), from perusal whereof, it would be evident that excess payment of r w Rs.44,370/ - has been made by the Bank agency towards arrears of pension to the petitioner. 7. It was further argued that the petitioner in his Special Leave Petition No.20745/2005 had taken ground of violation of Article 366 (17) of the Constitution of India and prayed for interest @ 14.5 % at the current market rate. He had also raised issue of revision of pension from 1996 to 2000, however, no reliefs as claimed by the petitioner were granted to the petitioner. \ 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that learned Administrative Tribunal allowing the application of the petitioner has held that he is entitled for promotion in the scale of Rs.550—750 (RS) as Dy. Station Superintendent and in scale of Rs.700-9OO (RS) as Station Superintendent Grade—II w.e.f. 1.8.82/1.8.83 and also as Station Superintendent in Grade—I in the scale of Rs.2375—35OO (RPS) w.e.f. 1.3.93 with all the consequential benefits at par with his next junior Shri M. Gopalan. The retiral benefits as also the pension shall als be revised accordingly. However, there is no direction by the Tribunal for .\ payment of interest on the amount of arrears. The above order has been affirmed by the High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court. It is also not in dispute that as per the calculation made by the respondent employer, a sum of Rs. 1, 18,635/—was deposited during the pendency of the writ petition No.450/2004 in the High Court on 15-10—2004, which has been subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner after the writ petition was decided in his favour by the High Court. The respondents have annexed various documents whereby entitlementof the petitioner for receiving pension in compliance of the order of the Tribunal has been calculated. <3 )..’yr I o The challenge to the above calculations by the petitioner is based on some certain communications received by hirn from Dena Bank from Where he receives his pension. The petitioner himself has not seriously challenged the calculations put-forth by respondents vide Annexures R/6 85 R/7. He has also not tiled any detailed calculation to establish that the Tribunal’s order has not been complied with in letter and spirit and the amount of Rs. 1, 18,635/ - calculated by the respondents is incorrect. 10.From perusal of the order of the High Court in W.P. No.450/2004, it is x x observed that vide order dated 31$ October, 2003 passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer the order of the Tribunal was already complied with by the respondent railways and for this reason the petitioner himself did not flle any proceedings for non—compliance of the Tribunal’s order. He did not challenge the legality and validity of the order of the Tribunal in the High Court. However, when the Tribunal’s order was affirmed by the High Court, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court and prayed for interest @ 14.5 % per annum on the ground that his right under Article 366 (17) of the Constitution of India has been violated and the same was rejected and the order of the High Court and the Tribunal was affirmedn \\ 11.In the absence of any glaring material that calculation towards entitlement of arrears of pension of the petitioner is on the face of it erroneous, the same cannot be doubted only on the basis of certain communications from the Bank to the Railways and the petitioner. In any case, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the payment under arrears and other heads by the respondents, he ought to have approached the Forum of competent jurisdiction and this disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in a writ proceedings. / 13.No orders as to costs. . 12.With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. [I fix Sd/— _. Dhirendra Mishra hidge ’lg/ 1 1/200g i i i i i