Original Application No. 217 of 2015. Case: Ram Narayan Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberOriginal Application No. 217 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: Sri Praveen Kumar, Adv.
JudgesMr. V.C. Gupta, Member-J
IssueRight to Information Act, 2005
Judgement DateMay 17, 2017
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal


(Lucknow Bench)

  1. The applicant has filed this O.A. claiming difference of Gratuity amount to the tune of Rs. 43,448/- per annum as well as arrears of pay amounting to Rs. 42761/- as a result of grant of CPC alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

  2. The applicant has not filed any calculation sheet. It has been contended that the applicant inducted into Railway service as casual labour in the year 1972. He was granted temporary status on 15.1.1979. His services were regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1990 and retired from service on 30.6.2011. On retirement, the applicant was granted all dues in June, 2011 vide letter dated 29.6.2011. Thereafter, he moved a representation on 30.8.2011 claiming benefits of entire service i.e. 32= years rendered by him. He also claimed the difference of amount of Gratuity after counting the entire service. Neither copy of letter dated 29.6.2011, nor representation dated 30.8.2011 is readable. The record reveals that the applicant had earlier filed O.A. having O.A. number 135 of 2014 claiming the similar relief(s), which is virtually sought in the present O.A. The said O.A. was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 9th April, 2013 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the applicant dated 30.8.2011 in accordance with law within a period of three months and the decision so taken be communicated to the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant submits that his representation has not been decided and no communication was made to him. The applicant under Right to Information Act, 2005 was informed that the decision has already been taken on 2.9.2013 in compliance of the order passed by this Tribunal and the applicant was duly communicated. A copy of order was again remitted to the applicant vide letter dated 5.6.2015. Thereafter, this petition has been filed.

  3. In spite of time granted to the respondents, neither the respondents preferred any Counter Affidavit in this matter, nor contested the same. Even the counsel for the respondents is not present today.

  4. Even if the case of the applicant is taken to be true, the applicant could only get advantage of the qualifying services rendered by him, which starts from the date of temporary status and not from the date...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT