Full Judgment
1. By filing this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 19.7.2011, as at Annexure A1 (page 17 of the paperbook), with further directions to the respondents to release the pension and pensionary benefits to the applicant along with cost and also to pay the arrears of pension from the date of declaring him medically unfit, i.e., from 20.02.1998.
2. The brief facts as projected by the applicant are that the applicant joined the Railways as Khallasi w.e.f. 03.05.1976 and thereafter w.e.f. 20.02.1990, the applicant was declared medically unfit and accordingly he was rendered medically decategorized and thereafter he was given appointment in accordance with his medical fitness and after medical examination, he was given appointment to the post of Safaikaramchari w.e.f. 20.2.1990 (pre-revised) in the scale of pay of Rs.750-940 and his basic pay was fixed at Rs.798/- in the aforesaid pay scale vide order dated 20.2.1990, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure A 2. Thereafter again the applicant was declared medically unfit by the screening committee w.e.f. 18.5.1998 and thereafter he was not given any duty. In pursuance of an application made by the Applicant under RTI Act, the respondents have vide their letter dated 14.1.2010, a copy of which is at Annexure A-3, informed the applicant that after having been found medically unfit by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Moradabad vide order dated 18.5.1998, he was given appointment to the post of Safaiwala. However, in accordance with the available documents with the respondents, the applicant was running absent from 20.2.1998 and why the applicant did not report for duty of Safaiwala and in this respect there was no document available in the office of the respondents and after expiry of 12 years. After expiry of 12 years, it was impossible to say as to why he was not taken on duty. However, the available records show that the applicant was absent from duty w.e.f. 20.2.1998. Medically decategorised staff have to be redeployed by the Screening Committee as per their capability. Thereafter in pursuance of RTI Application submitted by the applicant, the respondents have issued a letter dated 10.10.2010, a copy of which is at Annexure A-5, whereby it has been informed to the applicant that he was deployed to the post of Safaiwala at Luxur w.e.f. 18.5.1998 as medically de-categorized appointment but the applicant did not report to take duty before Health Inspector and your respective record (service book) were traced in Cand W Haridwar, Dehradun and Luxur which was still not being made available and as soon as the records be made available, any amount due to the applicant would be released. The respondents have also stated in the said letter that the applicant was absent from duty since 20.2.1990. Thereafter the applicant again sent a representation dated 29.12.2010, in response to which, the respondents vide their letter dated 4.2.2010, a copy of which is at Annexure A-6, informed that your service book has not been made available, still, in disposal section. The action with reference to payment of dues may have been ensured after receiving service book. To obtain service book, letter has been addressed to concerned sections. Thereafter a letter dated nil of February, 2010 was written by the G.M. Personal to the DRM, Divisional Office, Northern Railway, Moradabad, a copy of which is at Annexure A-7, requesting the DRM to apprise present and final position of Sh. Nand Kishore regarding his matter so that the Railway Board could be replied. The applicant then sent a representation dated 21.1.2011, a copy of which is at Annexure A-8, requesting the respondents to make the pension payment at the earliest. Thereafter on 25.2.2011, a copy of which is at Annexure A-9, the applicant made another representation in respect of missing of his service book regarding pension payment alleging that DRM Moradabad was not making payment of pension and retirement dues. Again, on 16.4.2011 the applicant made a representation, a copy of which is at Annexure A-10, wherein he requested that his dues be released at the earliest. On 19.7.2011, the respondents issued a letter whereby the applicant was informed that his matter had been investigated and the position was as under:-
“1. The date of birth of Sh. Nand Kishore S/o Sh. Babu Ram is 05.03.1951 and the date of recruitment is 03.05.1976. During investigation, it was found that aforesaid worker was declared medically unfit w.e.f. 28.1.1981 and in terms of pay register, his services have been dispensed with w.e.f. 13.6.1981 and since then he is running absent. After June, 1981, no pay was charged to him.
2. He has stated in his application that he has been compulsorily retired from service 20.02.1990, it appears to be incorrect because during verification, this statement was not proved. Since the period of his service is made out from May, 1976 to June, 1981, which founds only of five years, therefore, he is not entitled for any kind of pension and other benefits after his service.”
The aforesaid communication of 19.7.2011 is impugned by the applicant in this Application. Against the said order, the applicant has made a comprehensive representation dated 10.10.2011, a copy of which is at Annexure A-11. In this representation, the applicant has, inter alia, submitted that by respondent’s own communications made under RTI as referred to in the Original Application, he was on the rolls of the Railways in its sanitation department until 20.2.1998 and was stated to be running absent from 20.2.1998 as is cleared from their letter dated 14.1.2010, a copy of which is at Annexure A3 (page 19 to 19B of the Paper Book). Thus, the impugned order as at Annexure A1 is not factually correct that the applicant was running absent from 13.6.1981. It has further been submitted that even if the applicant was declared medically unfit on 20.2.1990, as claimed by the respondents as per their letter dated 19.10.2010, as at Annexure A5, the applicant had completed 14 years of service by that time and qualifying service for pension in such a case of compulsory retirement is 10 years. The impugned order as at Annexure A1 is thus factually incorrect when it stated the applicant had only 5 years of service from 1876 to 1981 for which no pension is payable. Furthermore, the applicant has contended in his representation that if he remained absent from 20.2.1998, then why no action was taken against him. Admittedly, the applicant has never been issued by the respondents any letter of termination/removal/dismissal from service. In the absence of any such letter, the applicant claimed that his request for grant of pension should be decided in terms of the rules and prayed the respondents accordingly. Feeling aggrieved with the respondent’s inaction in responding to this representation of the applicant, he has filed this Application.
3. When this Application came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant made a short prayer that since the respondents have not taken any decision on his comprehensive representation dated 10.10.2011, a copy of which is at Annexure A-11, this Application be disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to consider the applicant’s representation dated 10.10.2011. He further requests that this Application may be treated as a supplementary representation of the applicant.
4. In view of the limited prayer made by the applicant’s counsel as aforesaid and also for the reason that the factual status of the matter needs to be initially verified by the respondents from their records, it is considered expedient to dispose of this Application by issuing directions to the respondents to consider the matter afresh and decide the applicant’s representation dated 10.10.2011, a copy of which is at Annexure A-11, and taking this OA also as his supplementary representation, and inform the applicant the result thereof through a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
5. In view of the limited prayer and having regard to the nature of relief accorded as aforesaid, it has not been considered necessary to go into the merits of the case. I may add that directions issued as aforesaid are not intended to operate to the prejudice of the respondents in any manner whatsoever.
6. The Application is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.