Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.3647/2010
Reserved on : 12.09.2012
Pronounced on : 25.09.2012
Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman
Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A)
Shri R P S Panwar
S/o Shri Bihar Lal
R/o H.No. 86-A,
Radhey Shyam Park,
Gali No.2, Parwana Road,
Delhi 110 051. Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri R.P. Kapoor)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through Director (Estt),
Department of Telecommunications,
11th Floor, Sanchar Bhawan,
20, Ashok Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Disciplinary Authority,
Through Under Secretary (Admn.),
Department of Telecommunications
Sanchar Bhawan,
20, Ashok Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
3. The Controller of Communication Accounts
Through its Joint Controller of Communication Accounts,
UP (West) Telecom District,
3rd Floor, Brahampuri Telephone Exchange Building,
Meerut (UP).
4. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare,
Through its Secretary,
Lok Nayak Bhawan,
New Delhi 110 003. Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri Krishan Kumar)
O R D E R
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A):
Through the instant Original Application, Shri R.P.S. Panwar - a retired ITS Officer, the applicant herein, is seeking the following main relief(s):-
8.03.That (Annexure A-1, A-2, A-3 and to the extent Annexure A-4 is applicable in respect of provisional pension and coming in the way of relief to applicant) be kindly declared as void abinitio and be aside; it be kindly also held that Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 acted without authority of law and without jurisdiction and in bad faith only by ignoring the staring law, rules and procedure as well as duty;
8.04.That applicant be kindly granted the revision as per 6th CPC and accordingly the leave encashment and other retiral dues, provisional pension, excepting Gratuity with interest @ 12% per annum from date of their respect accruals. The prayer for release of deposits with interest in favour of Applicant under the CGEG Insurance Scheme is respectfully made at paragraph 9 below.
2. Brief facts of the case would reveal that the applicant who was kept under deemed suspension w.e.f. 19.09.2003, was allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation (under suspension) vide order dated 28.04.2006 (Annexure A-15) w.e.f. 30.04.2006. The said order also envisaged that as his vigilance clearance was withheld due to his suspension, he would be paid provisional pension as per Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is the case of the applicant that as the 6th CPC recommendations on pay and pension came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2006, and the applicant retired on 30.04.2006, he was entitled to the revised provisional pension as per the 6th CPC recommendations. It is stated that the applicant is facing six disciplinary proceedings and one criminal case which are pending for long time despite applicants cooperation. Some of the disciplinary proceedings have already been stayed. It is further his case that though there is one criminal case, however, no previous approval, mandatory for conducting any enquiry and/or investigation under Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has yet been accorded by the Government. It is, therefore, averred that the inquiry and investigation undertaken being void ab initio and the criminal proceedings having been stayed by the Honble High Court of Delhi, and as there is no order of suspension under sub- rule (2) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965, the applicant should be considered to have unblemished and clean record of service. The 6th CPC recommendations giving effect to various revised pay scales Band with Grade Pay for serving employees and pension for the retired employees came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The applicants case is that he has retired on 30.04.2006 and as such his subsistence allowance and provisional pension get covered by the said recommendations of the 6th CPC. It was his case that he was kept under deemed suspension from 18.09.2003 to 03.02.2006 and on invalid suspension from 04.02.2006. But, the present OA does not raise the controversy in the relief clause on legal/illegal suspension w.e.f. 04.02.2006 upto 30.04.2006. Further, the retirement OM dated 28.04.2006 has not eben assailed in the OA. We, therefore, refrain to decide the issue and secured assumption would be to treat the applicants retirement under suspension.
3. It has been stated that as per letter dated 27.01.2010, the respondents are required to pay the provisional pension as well as arrears to the applicant in terms of the revised pay scales. In the meantime, on the applicants representation the Jt. Controller of Communication Accounts sought clarification vide Annexure A-3 dated 25.05.2010 from Department of Telecommunication. The applicants representations were considered by the concerned officers but the respondents have passed the impugned communication dated 28.06.2010 (Annexure A-1) whereby the revision of pension requested by the applicant was directed to wait till the regularization of his suspension period in view of Note-4 below Rule 7 (1) D of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and the said impugned communication inter alia, refers to the Government O.M. dated 15.06.2010 wherein it has been decided by the Government that Government servant under suspension as on 01.01.2006 and retired without joining duty is not entitled to any revision of provisional pension but will get only provisional pension calculated on the basis of the emoluments which such Government servant has been drawing immediately before suspension. It has been further indicated that the provisional pension will not be revised until the conclusion of departmental/judicial proceedings. It is averred in the OA that the applicant requested for information under Right to Information Act, 2005 and was informed that large number of similarly situated persons as the applicant have already been granted benefit of 6th CPC recommendations relating to revision of pension. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction by the respondents to revise applicants pension as per the pay scales recommended by the 6th CPC, he filed OA No. 3205/2010 before the Tribunal but withdrew the same seeking liberty to file fresh Original Application wherein he would challenge (a) the relevant rules, (b) OM dated 27.08.1958 and (c) Note-4 below Rule 7(1) D of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. The Tribunal while dismissing the said OA granted liberty to the applicant to file a fresh Original Application for other relief(s) except the relief in respect of subsistence allowance as per the revised pay structure as recommended by the 6th CPC. Accordingly, the applicant has moved the Tribunal and instituted the instant Original Application.
4. Shri R.P. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, highlighted the background of the case and submitted that the respondents did not have a clear, cogent and consistent provisions between the FRs, CCS (CCA) Rules, CCS (Pension) Rules and the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules including the OM dated 01.09.2008 and 02.09.2008 and there was no specific judicial pronouncement to bar the applicant to get the relief(s) as prayed for. It is contended that the pensioners getting full pension but facing disciplinary proceedings continue to get the full pension but charged officers prior to retirement getting the provisional pension on the date of retirement are treated differently. The dichotomy in the statutory provisions provide contradictory guidelines/instructions/clarifications as a result, the applicant is suffering. He has, therefore, challenged the appropriate provisions of the Rules and Guidelines.
5. Sh. Kapoor would further contend that the applicant had put in over 34 years of service and for the pendency of disciplinary and criminal cases, he could not be denied the revision of provisional pension as per the 6th CPC recommendations. It is submitted that the final order purported to have been mentioned in the Government instructions/guidelines are not likely to be passed in the case of the applicant in near future as the disciplinary proceedings and criminal case have been stayed by the competent judicial authorities. The regularization of period of suspension comes within the functional domain of the competent executive authority but non-regularization of the suspension period takes away the rights, which accrue to the applicant due to his retirement in April, 2006 and deprives him of the revision of provisional pension otherwise admissible to him as per the 6th CPC recommendations. It is stated that Note-3 to Rule 33 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides equality amongst the pensioners and does not create any disparity among different types of pensioners, which has unauthorizedly been created by the respondents. It is further contended that the applicant has retired in April, 2006 and as per the recommendations of the earlier Central Pay Commissions, he was entitled to get the provisional pension and after five years running of the 6th CPC on 15.06.2010, a clarification issued by the respondents created disparity and deprived the applicant of his right to get the revised provisional pension under the 6th CPC. It is, therefore, alleged that this is an attempt of the respondents to justify the wrongful, irreparable loss and injury caused to the applicant by withholding Rs.14,859/- out of Rs.38,772/- and paying the applicant Rs.23,913/-as monthly provisional pension and denying him to get the revised provisional pension under 6th CPC. The applicant having put in required qualifying service of over 34 years cannot be denied the benefit of paragraph 5.2 of the OM dated 02.09.2008.
6. In view of the above contentions, Shri Kapoor would urge that the Original Application should be allowed and the respondents should be directed to revise the applicants provisional pension as per the 6th CPC Pay Bands and calculate the period of suspension for the purpose of arriving at the pension admissible to him with effect from April, 2006. He also claims that the leave encashment and other retiral dues and arrears of provisional pension, if sanctioned, should also carry the appropriate interest rate in favour of the applicant.
7. On receipt of the notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed their counter reply on 17.05.2012 through Shri Krishan Kumar, senior counsel for the Central Government and have controverted all the grounds taken by the applicant in the OA. Shri Krishan Kumar would contend that a Government servant under suspension draws subsistence allowance based on the emoluments drawn in the scale of pay then existing at the time of suspension and the revision of the pay as per the new pay structure is extended only after the final order in pending disciplinary and judicial proceedings get completed. He drew our attention to the DOP&PW OM No. 38/37/2008-P&PW(A) dated 15.06.2010 to state that a Government servant, who was under suspension as on 01.01.2006 and retired without joining duty, was entitled to only provisional pension based on the emoluments which he drew immediately before suspension, and the said provisional pension would not undergo any revision until the conclusion of the disciplinary and judicial proceedings. In view of the clear stipulations by the Government in the statutory rules and guidelines, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of the recommendations of the 6th CPC i.e. revision of his pay and allowance w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and also consequential revision of his provisional pension. Therefore, he is also not entitled to the arrears of pay and allowances and provisional pension as claimed by him in the OA.
8. Shri Krishan Kumar also submitted that the first respondent, placing his reliance on OM dated 15.06.2010, issued a letter to the third respondent in respect of the applicant and on the clarification so received from DOP&PW, letter dated 28.6.2010 impugned by the applicant was issued. His contention was that in view of the clear guidelines of the DOP&PW, applicants provisional pension would not be revised with effect from his date of superannuation as the applicant was continuing under suspension even on 01.01.2006 and superannuated from his service as such without joining duty. In this context, Shri Krishan Kumar placed his reliance on Note-4 below Rule 7(1) of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. His contention is that the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and the clarification issued by the DOP & PW are not contradictory to each other but are clarificatory in nature, which supplement each other. Therefore, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the applicant that those being contradictory with each other should be quashed were not legally apt to be considered for challenging the vires of those rules.
9. He also submitted that the applicant had filed OA No.855/2009 before the Tribunal which was dismissed in limine as having no merits vide order dated 22.04.2009. The applicant filed RA No. 86/2009 in the said OA which was too dismissed vide order dated 02.06.2009. The applicant took the case before the Honble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.12906/2009 and WP(C) No. 3012/2008, which were dismissed by the Honble High Court vide a common judgment holding that where a Government servant was under suspension at the time of his retirement, the disciplinary proceedings would be deemed to be instituted from the date of his suspension or from the date of issuance of chargesheet issued to him, whichever was earlier, and where a Government servant was not under suspension at the time of his retirement, the disciplinary proceedings would be deemed to be instituted from the date of issuance of the chargesheet to him. Taking the above position into consideration, Honble High Court held that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the second part of Rule 9(6)(a) does not apply in the case of pensioner. Since the above judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi was not challenged, the same attained finality in respect of the applicant and the issues having been already adjudicated, the applicant was barred to raise the same issues again in the present OA.
10. Shri Krishan Kumar also submitted that criminal proceedings against the applicant relate to the possession of disproportionate assets and, as such, the case being very serious in nature, the applicant would not be entitled to revision of his provisional pension. Further, refuting the allegations of the applicant, Shri Krishan Kumar would submit that the applicant had not given any instance where the provisional pension of a retiree was revised in violation of Note-4 below Rule 7(1) of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and seeking parity with others, who were not similarly placed, would not get the applicant any benefit. It is the case of the respondents that Rule 33 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 with the emoluments defined in the said Rules is very clear and would cover the applicants case as he was under suspension and the provisional pension was fixed on the basis of the emoluments the applicant was getting just before he was placed under suspension. In view of the above contentions, Shri Krishan Kumar would urge that the OA deserves to be dismissed.
11. In the background of the above contentions advanced by the parties, we perused the pleadings of the case. Four following issues come up for our consideration (i) Whether letter dated 28.06.2010 (Annexure A-1); OM dated 15.06.2010 (Annexure A-2); letter dated 25.05.2010 (Annexure A-3) and O.M. dated 27.08.1958 (Annexure A-4), in so far as the provisional pension is concerned, are void ab initio? (ii) Whether 1st and 2nd respondents lack authority and jurisdiction in rejecting the claims of the applicant for revision of provisional pension? (iii) Whether the applicant is entitled to get revised pension, leave encashment and other retiral dues with interest except gratuity as per 6th CPC recommendations? (iv) Whether the applicant is to be released the deposits with interest in respect of CGEGIS?
12. Before we dwell on the above four issues we would consider now the issue of discrimination raised in the OA. Referring to Annexure A-16 to Annexure A-19, Shri Kapoor would contend that the revision of provisional pension was granted to the similarly situated persons as the applicant had received this information under Right to Information Act, 2005. In most of those cases the pension was granted under the 6th CPC explaining that such payments would be subject to the outcome of the appeal pending in respect of disciplinary cases. It is his contention that after retirement the provisional pension is bound to be revised as per the 6th CPC recommendations. Only in case of suspension the revision of subsistence allowance is not permissible. It is further contended that the period of suspension should be counted for the purpose of arriving at the provisional pension. Learned counsel would claim parity for the applicant which should have been granted as similarly situated persons were granted revised pension/provisional pension on the basis of 6th CPC recommendations. The respondents have not been in a position to indicate how the applicants rights to claim parity could be taken away by mere clarification. The above discrimination contention was disputed by the respondents. Shri Krishna Kumar would contend that the applicant had not given even one instance where the provisional pension of a retiree was revised in violation of Note-4 below Rule 7(1) of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and submit that information received by the applicant under RTI Act and placed at Annexures A16-19 did not reflect similarity with the applicants case. We have very carefully examined the issue of discrimination and the Annexures A16-19 which were referred to in support of the applicants claim. The Annexure A-16 provides name of 5 persons whose provisional pension has been revised as per 6th CPC but this does not indicate whether 5 such persons have retired while under suspension. Annexure A-17 is in response to applicants questions under RTI Act and indicates that the provisional pension of Shri Mohinder Pratap Ex SAO and Shri Arun Kumar Ex DDG has not been revised. The letter dated 02.08.2010 is at Annexure A-18 which is reply to the applicants querries dated 05.07.2010 and 06.07.2010 and inter alia encloses a list of 13 officers whose provisional pension has been revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as per 6th CPC, but does not manifest how those 13 officers are similarly circumstanced as the applicant. Annexure A-19 is letter dated 03.08.2010 which does not support the claim of discrimination. In view of the above, we are not convinced of the grounds of discrimination taken in support of the relief(s) claimed by the applicant.
13. With regard to the first set of issues, which are directly attacking the vires of the provisions of Rules/O.Ms/letters, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that all these provisions are contradictory with each other and, therefore, should be quashed and set aside by declaring them as void ab initio. We may refer to these impugned Rules/OMs/letters to find out how far the contention of the learned applicants counsel is valid. Shri Krishan Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondents has vehemently opposed the said contention of the applicant to say that those rules and guidelines are well tested over the years and are not contradictory with each other.
14. The impugned letter dated 28.06.2010 relates to the reply given to the applicant with regard to his request for payment of leave encashment, CGEIGS, DCRG and outstanding dues of pension after revision of pay with effect from 01.01.2006 as per 6th CPC. The letter dated 28.06.2010 reads as follows:-
With reference to your letter No.CCA/UP/(W)/Pro.PEN/ MUZ/20120-11/385 dated 25.5.2010, it is stated that the revision of pension of Shri R.P.S. Panwar may wait till the regularization of his suspension period and also in view of Note 4 below Rule 7(1) D of the CCS( RP) Rules, 2008. Moreover, it has recently been clarified by the department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare vide its O.M. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 15th June, 2010 (copy enclosed) that the Government Servant, who was under suspension as on 1.1.2006 and retired without joining duty, is entitled to only provisional pension. The emoluments, which he drew immediately before suspension, shall be the emoluments for the purpose of the provisional pension. This provisional pension will not be revised until the conclusion of the departmental/judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. In view of the clear instructions of DoP&PW on the issue, provisional pension of Shri R.P.S. Panwar cannot be revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006 consequent to 6th CPC.
The above letter is based on the clarification received by DoT from the DoP&PW O.M. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 15th June, 2010 which has been assailed by the applicant in the OA. The reply was given to the request letter dated 25.5.2010 received by the 1st respondent from the 2nd respondent on the admissibility or otherwise for payment of pension to the applicant after revision of his pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as per the 6th CPC. The OM dated 15.06.2010 is a clarificatory letter on the doubts raised in the manner in which the pension and other retirement benefits applicable to the Government servants who are on extraordinary leave/unauthorized absence/suspension as on 01.01.2006 and retired/died thereafter without joining duty, would be regulated. The OM inter alia refers to Rule 33 of the CCS( Pension) Rules, 1972 and Rule 9(21)(a)(i) of the Fundamental Rules in clarifying three specific doubts, one of which is relevant to the instant OA is extracted below:-
Government servant, who was under suspension as on 1.1.2006 and retired thereafter without joining duty. Such a Government Servant, on retirement, is entitled to only provisional pension. The emoluments which he drew immediately before suspension shall be the emoluments for the purpose of provisional pension. This provisional pension will not be revised until the conclusion of the departmental/ judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon.
In view of the controversy whether the applicant was entitled to revision of his provisional pension both sides referred to the OM dated 27.08.1958 dealing with revision of pay scale of Government Servants while under suspension. We may reproduce below the pertinent portion relevant on the issue raised in the OA:-
2. Cases in which the revised scale of pay takes effect from a date falling with the period of suspension.
(a): Under suspension a Government Servant retains a lien on his substantive post. As the expression holder of a post occurring in FR 23 includes also a person who holds a lien or a suspended lien on the post even though he may not be actually holding the post, such a Government Servant should be allowed to exercise the option under FR 23 even while under suspension. The benefit of option will, however, practically accrue to him in respect of the period of suspension, only after his reinstatement depending on the fact that whether the period of suspension is treated as duty or not.
15. With regard to the relief claimed by the applicant to declare the above referred letters and OMs as void ab initio in respect of provisional pension, we note that those are legally sustainable and are not contradictory with each other. The OM dated 27.08.1958 has been to a great extent incorporated in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Fundamental Rules. The letters/OM dated 25.05.2010, 15.06.2010 and 28.06.2010 are in conformity with the Statutory Rules. We may examine these in subsequent paragraphs.
16. The provisional pension and revision thereof is calculated on the basis of emoluments drawn by the Government servant. Rule 3(e) defines emoluments which means emoluments as defined in Rule 33 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Rule 33 envisages that the expression emoluments means basic pay as defined in Rule 9 (21) (a) (i) of the Fundamental Rules which Government servant was receiving immediately before his retirement or on the date of his death. In case of suspended Government servant retired from service while under suspension, Note 3 to Rule 33 will be applicable. The Note-3 to Rule 33 of the CCS (Pension) Rules envisages as follows:-
NOTE 3. If a Government servant immediately before his retirement or death while in service had been absent from duty on extraordinary leave or had been under suspension, the period whereof does not count as service, the emoluments which he drew immediately before proceeding on such leave or being placed under suspension shall be the emoluments for the purpose of this rule. [Emphasis supplied]
17. In case of the 6th CPC recommendations, the Government of India have issued the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. According to Rule 6(1)(ii), where a Government servant is under suspension on the 1st day of January, 2006, the option may be exercised within three months from the date of his return to his duty if that date is later than the date prescribed in this sub-rule. As per the above statutory rules, we noted the facts of the present case and could find that the applicant was under suspension as on 01.01.2006. Though the applicant retired on 30.04.2006 on superannuation while under suspension, he did not return to his duty and did not join his duty before retirement. As such he could not have exercised his option as per the above rule less to speak of getting either revised pay/subsistence allowance or the revised provisional pension under the 6th CPC. Even if he exercised his option, the applicant case would come up for decision by the Competent Authority on passing of the final orders on the pending disciplinary and judicial proceedings. At this stage, it is pertinent for us to refer to the Note-4 below Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 reads as follows:-
NOTE 4. A Government servant under suspension, shall continue to draw subsistence allowance based on existing scale of pay and his pay in the revised pay structure will be subject to the final order on the pending disciplinary proceedings.
18. From the collective reading of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972; CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the OMs/letters referred to above, it emerges that the subsistence allowance is fixed on the basis of the emoluments drawn just prior to the official was put under suspension. Since the pension/provisional pension is fixed on the basis of the emoluments drawn by the concerned Government official prior to the date of suspension, revision of emoluments under 6th CPC fixed after the event of suspension would not arise and hence the revision of the pension/provisional pension as per the revised pay scales would not materialize until all proceedings were finalized. In the instant case, the provisional pension has been fixed for the applicant on the basis of the emoluments that he was drawing just prior to his suspension. That is the right position. He is not entitled to revision of provisional pension as disciplinary and judicial proceedings have not yet been finalized.
19. These rules and Guidelines, in our considered opinion, are not contradictory to each other but are supplementary to each other and do not in any manner provide different reading. These OMs and letters are logical and rational. No specific ground has been advanced by the applicant to declare those OMs and letters as void ab initio. We do find rationality behind such provisions and clarifications issued in the impugned OM and letters. We are not convinced by the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant to declare those as void ab initio in order to extend him the benefit of the 6th CPC pay revision and revision of his provisional pension.
20. We may now refer to the second issue raised by the learned counsel for the applicant whether the 1st and 2nd respondents have the jurisdiction in rejecting the claims of the applicant for revision of provisional his pension. The 1st respondent is the Department of Telecommunications in the Ministry of Telecommunications & IT and the 2nd respondent is also the Department of Telecommunications and the Minister-in-charge of the Department is the Disciplinary Authority in the case of the applicant. In both the cases, it is the Government of India represented through the concerned officers of the Department of Telecommunications, who convey the decision of the Government i.e. the Competent Authority through the letters and orders. The Director (Establishment) and the Under Secretary (Administration) have conveyed the established principles which are backed by the statutory rules. They are only communicating the decision(s) taken by the Competent Authorities. Therefore, the second set of allegations do not convince us calling for our interference in the matter.
21. The third claim raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is entitled to get revision of his pension, leave Encashment and other retiral dues with interest except gratuity as per the 6th CPC recommendations. In this regard, as we have extensively dwelt on the issue whether provisional pension can be revised as per the fresh recommendations of CPC in the first issue within, we are of the considered view that the applicant is not entitled to get his provisional pension revised as per the 6th CPC until the departmental and judicial proceedings pending against him are finally decided. Therefore, the interest claimed by the applicant on the said revised provisional pension would not arise at present. With regard to the leave encashment and other retiral dues, he would be able to get the arrears of those retiral dues only when the departmental and criminal proceedings are finally decided. Therefore, we do not find any support in favour of the applicant in case of the third set of contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
22. In respect of the fourth issue raised by the learned counsel for the applicant i.e. whether the applicant is to be released the deposits with interest in respect of CGEIGS, we have carefully considered the issue and note that the CGEIGS is an Insurance Scheme applicable to the Government employees, and the deposits in the said Scheme are deducted directly from their monthly pay. The Scheme has a specific tenure and on completion of such tenure, the deposits with interest accrued to the account of the concerned Government employees are to be paid back to them after retirement. The CGEIGS has no linkage to the pendency of departmental and judicial proceedings pending against the Government servant at the time of his/her suspension. In the instant case, though the applicant has raised the issue that he has not received his CGEIGS amount including interest thereon, it is seen from the impugned letter dated 28.06.2010, that the respondents have not addressed this claim and combined the CGEIGS claim with revision of pension. As there is no specific prohibition for payment of CGEIGS deposit with interest, the applicant will be entitled to receive the same as per the Scheme. Hence, it would be appropriate for us to direct the respondents to examine the matter and ensure that the deposits with interest as per CGEIGS are paid to the applicant as expeditiously as possible. In case the said CGEIGS amount had already been paid to the applicant, he would be entitled to get proper information on the same from the respondents.
23. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the applicant is not entitled to the benefits that he has claimed in the first three issues i.e. (i) he is not entitled to the revision of his provisional pension; (ii) the 1st and 2nd respondents have the authority and jurisdiction in rejecting the claim of the applicant for revision of his provisional pension; and (iii) the applicant is not entitled to get interest on the revised pension, leave encashment and other retiral dues. However, as far as the fourth issue relating to payment of CGEIGS amount with interest due to the applicant is concerned, the respondents are directed to make the said payment to the applicant and if the said amount has already been paid to the applicant, the respondents will provide him proper information in that behalf as expeditiously as possible, but positively within nine weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
24. In the result, with the above observations and directions, present Original Application stands disposed of with no order as to the costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (Syed Rafat Alam)
Member (A) Chairman
/naresh/
