ups_01188 — Due to delay and laches, the Tribunal declined to issue any direction for payment of terminal benefits to the Applicant, ie. GPF contribution, Retirement Gratuity, Commuted Pension, Leave Encashment and Insurance Benefits. However, as per law laid down in the case of M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and others, [ 1995 (5) SCC 628 ], correct fixation of pay is a recurring cause of action and hence Respondents herein have to pay monthly pension to the Applicant herein with arrears thereof with effect

UPS

Due to delay and laches, the Tribunal declined to issue any direction for payment of terminal benefits to the Applicant, ie. GPF contribution, Retirement Gratuity, Commuted Pension, Leave Encashment and Insurance Benefits. However, as per law laid down in the case of M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and others, [ 1995 (5) SCC 628 ], correct fixation of pay is a recurring cause of action and hence Respondents herein have to pay monthly pension to the Applicant herein with arrears thereof with effect from 11-11-2009 (one year prior to date of filing of this OA) — This chunk discusses an OA (Original Application) No. 3866 of 2010, which involves a dispute between the Applicant and Respondents over the payment of terminal benefits like GPF contribution, Retirem... — Facts : The Applicant herein assigned a job as UDC/LDC against a temporary vacancy in the scale of pay of 1,105-300 plus ₹ 20 as special pay in terms of order, dated 21-8-1991 in Income Tax Department, Delhi-1. The Applicant applied for voluntary retirement under FR 56-K. The appropriate authority under Rule 48-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 accepted his request and issued order, dated 15-11-1995. After 10 years of his accepting voluntary retirement, the Applicant represented to Director-General, Income Tax (Vigilance) seeking his intervention for payment of retiral benefits such as GPF contribution, Gratuity, commuted pension, monthly pension, Leave Encashment and Insurance Benefit. He also sought assistance under RTI Act seeking reasons for non-payment of retiral benefits, its quantum-wise details, date of payment of these benefits and if not paid, reasons thereof. The present OA is filed seeking issuance of direction to the Respondents to release all his retiral benefits with 24% interest till the payment. The Applicant submitted that the retiral benefits cannot be withheld whereas the Respondents plead that the retiral benefits cannot be paid due to elapse of 15 years and records are not available. As per G.I., Dept. of P&P.W., O.M., dated 5-10-1999, retiral benefits of a retired Government servant complete in all respects need to be settled within 30 days. The relevant portion of that O.M., Para. 5 is reproduced in the judgment. It is also laid down that interest on final payment of GPF on retirement /quitting of service is not payable for one month after submission of application. Thus the final settlement dues became payable which accrued on 15-12-1992. But the present OA is filed 17 years after retirement and hence barred by laches. Further, no service record is available long time after retirement. In the case of Rattan Chandra Sammanta and others v. The Union of India and others [ JT 1993 (3) SC 418 ], it was held that in the absence of any positive material to buttress the factual assertion, it would not be proper to direct the opposite party to verify correctness of such assertion. The judgment is reproduced for clarity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others [ 2007 (9) SCC 274 ] held that if there is negligence or omission on the part of the Applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the other party. Paras. 4 & 6 of the judgment is reproduced for clarity.

UPS

Due to delay and laches, the Tribunal declined to issue any direction for payment of terminal benefits to the Applicant, ie. GPF contribution, Retirement Gratuity, Commuted Pension, Leave Encashment and Insurance Benefits. However, as per law laid down in the case of M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and others, [ 1995 (5) SCC 628 ], correct fixation of pay is a recurring cause of action and hence Respondents herein have to pay monthly pension to the Applicant herein with arrears thereof with effect from 11-11-2009 (one year prior to date of filing of this OA) — This chunk discusses an OA (Original Application) No. 3866 of 2010, which involves a dispute between the Applicant and Respondents over the payment of terminal benefits like GPF contribution, Retirem... — Facts : The Applicant herein assigned a job as UDC/LDC against a temporary vacancy in the scale of pay of 1,105-300 plus ₹ 20 as special pay in terms of order, dated 21-8-1991 in Income Tax Department, Delhi-1. The Applicant applied for voluntary retirement under FR 56-K. The appropriate authority under Rule 48-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 accepted his request and issued order, dated 15-11-1995. After 10 years of his accepting voluntary retirement, the Applicant represented to Director-General, Income Tax (Vigilance) seeking his intervention for payment of retiral benefits such as GPF contribution, Gratuity, commuted pension, monthly pension, Leave Encashment and Insurance Benefit. He also sought assistance under RTI Act seeking reasons for non-payment of retiral benefits, its quantum-wise details, date of payment of these benefits and if not paid, reasons thereof. The present OA is filed seeking issuance of direction to the Respondents to release all his retiral benefits with 24% interest till the payment. The Applicant submitted that the retiral benefits cannot be withheld whereas the Respondents plead that the retiral benefits cannot be paid due to elapse of 15 years and records are not available. As per G.I., Dept. of P&P.W., O.M., dated 5-10-1999, retiral benefits of a retired Government servant complete in all respects need to be settled within 30 days. The relevant portion of that O.M., Para. 5 is reproduced in the judgment. It is also laid down that interest on final payment of GPF on retirement /quitting of service is not payable for one month after submission of application. Thus the final settlement dues became payable which accrued on 15-12-1992. But the present OA is filed 17 years after retirement and hence barred by laches. Further, no service record is available long time after retirement. In the case of Rattan Chandra Sammanta and others v. The Union of India and others [ JT 1993 (3) SC 418 ], it was held that in the absence of any positive material to buttress the factual assertion, it would not be proper to direct the opposite party to verify correctness of such assertion. The judgment is reproduced for clarity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others [ 2007 (9) SCC 274 ] held that if there is negligence or omission on the part of the Applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the other party. Paras. 4 & 6 of the judgment is reproduced for clarity.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text