Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI O.A No. 3923/2017 New Delhi, this the 26th day of July, 2019 Hon’ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A) Sanjay Narayen, Aged – 65 years, S/o. Late Dr. Nripendra Narayan Retired IAS Officer, R/o. C-36, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi-110 065. ...Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. Yogesh Sharma) Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, North Block, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, R. G. Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi-3. 4. The Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra Mantralaya, Mumbai. ...Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. U. Srivastava) O R D E R (O R A L) The applicant Mr. Sanjay Narayen was an IAS officer of 1976 batch. He submitted his resignation on 08.09.2006 which was accepted by the competent authority vide notification No. F. No. 24012/1/2006-AISII dated 2 O.A No. 3923/2017 01.11.2006. Subsequently, on 09.06.2017 (Annexure A/4) the applicant submitted a representation requesting for gratuity to be paid to him. This was rejected by the competent authority vide letter No.24012/03/2017-AIS-II dated 25.09.2017 stating that gratuity, which is one of the retirement benefits in terms of the rule 2(1)(j) of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958, is inadmissible under the extant rules. 2. Vide this O.A, the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 25.09.2017 denying him gratuity and prayed for directing the respondents to release all the retirement benefits including service pension, leave encashment, gratuity etc along with the interest at the rate of 18% from due date. He has also cited order dated 23.12.2016 in O.A No. 167/2015 in Vinay Kumar Bedi Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and T.A. No. 95/1986 decided on 24.10.86 in Pritam Lal Vs. UOI & Ors., to support of his claim. He has cited Allahabad High Court’s order in Writ – A No. 2322 of 2014 in Dr. Ram Kishore Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. wherein it was held that an employee cannot be denied benefit of retirement if he has given his resignation but has rendered the necessary qualifying service. 3. The respondents have denied the claim of the applicant and stated that the consequences of resignation 3 O.A No. 3923/2017 and voluntary retirement are different as are the competent authorities for accepting. The competent authority for accepting the application for voluntary retirement of IAS Officers who have completed 30 years of service is the concerned State Government, whereas, the authority for accepting resignation is Government of India. As per the extant rules, the claims of the applicant cannot be considered in the case of resignation. They have also stated that the applicant vide his resignation dated 09.06.2017, has requested for release of gratuity only and not for release of pensionary benefits which he is now claiming in this O.A. 4. Heard Mr. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. U. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents. 5. It is true that the applicant has not applied to the competent authority for grant of all pensionary benefits. In the light of this, liberty is granted to the applicant to make a proper representation to the competent authority who is directed to decide such representation, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, keeping in mind the various Court orders which have been cited by the applicant in this O.A. 4 O.A No. 3923/2017 6. With this direction, the O.A is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Aradhana Johri) Member (A) /Mbt/ .

Load more