Delhi High Court Sh. N.K. Madhok vs Union Of India And Ors. on 14 October, 2019 $~56 * % Date of Judgment : 14th October, 2019 + W.P.(C) 10903/2019 SH. N.K. MADHOK ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.Rajeshwari H., Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Anjana Gosain, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL) C.M.45093/2019 (exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 10903/2019 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 06.12.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal'), by which the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of interest from 02.10.2004 to 31.03.2015 has been declined; and pension for the period he had rendered service with National Airports Authority (NAA) with effect from 02.08.1989 to 30.11.2003 has also been denied. 4. The petitioner herein joined service on 02.04.1976 after qualifying in the UPSC exam held in the year 1975 and the services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Civil Aviation/Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). On 01.06.1986 the National W.P.(C) 10903/2019 Page 1 of 5 Airports Authority was created as an autonomous body by an Act of Parliament and accordingly the operational wings of DGCA Headquarters were transferred to NAA; consequent whereupon the petitioner was also transferred to NAA on technical deputation with effect from 01.06.1986. The petitioner was given adhoc promotion by NAA, now the Airports Authority of India (AAI), on 30.06.1989. The petitioner was then absorbed on 02.10.1989 as Steno Grade 'B'. Hence the petitioner was no longer considered a Central Government employee from 02.10.1989. 5. In the year 19911992, the petitioner opted to commute 100% of his pension for his services rendered in DGCA and was accordingly paid his dues. 6. On 30.11.1993 the petitioner resigned from services after four years and two months and was consequently duly discharged from the post of Senior Personnel and Administration Officer. The petitioner claims that during his services, either with DGCA or with NAA, he was provided with free medical facility for himself and his dependent family members. However, upon his resignation these services were withdrawn for Government employees who had got their pension commuted, while employees who did not get their pension commuted continued to be provided with CGHS facility for free treatment for themselves and their dependent family members. 7. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in Welfare Association of Absorbed Central Government Employees in Public Enterprises and Others vs. Union of India and Another, (1996) 2 SCC 187 passed judgment on 15.12.1995 wherein it was held that absorbed employees are also W.P.(C) 10903/2019 Page 2 of 5 entitled to the benefit of restoration of 1/3rd pension after expiry of 15 years from their retirement. Pursuant to the said judgment of the Supreme Court, an Office Memorandum was issued by the Central Government on 30.09.1996 whereby benefit of restoration of commuted pension was made applicable to all those Government employees who had been absorbed in Public Sector Undertakings/Autonomous or Statutory Bodies notwithstanding the fact that they had commuted their full pension earlieron. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted his representation to the DGCA on 17.11.2014 and his request was forwarded to the Airports Authority of India on 27.11.2014 as his service record was available with AAI. A calculation sheet was prepared by AAI for restoration of onethird pension on 31.12.2014 and DGCA ordered for payment of arrears to the petitioner on 09.04.2015, which it transpired were incorrect arrears. In supersession of its earlier order dated 09.04.2015, DGCA directed payment of corrected arrears of pension vide order dated 16.04.2015. Arrears having been paid to the petitioner on 20.04.2015, the petitioner now claims interest for the period of tenandahalf years for the delay in payment of arrears of pension, which was declined by the Tribunal. Ms.Rajeshwari H., counsel for the petitioner submits that the onus was on the respondent to grant pen