Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 21070 and 13836 of 2015 as both the petitions are against common order dated 7.4.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (CAT). However, the facts are being taken from CWP No.21070 of 2015.
(2.) In CWP No.21070 of 2015, the petitioner - Rail Coach Factory (in short, RCF), Kapurthala prays for quashing the impugned order dated 7.4.2015, Annexure P.4 to the extent of counting ad hoc service rendered by Smt.Neena Sharma, deceased wife of respondent No.1 w.e.f 21.1.1987 to 10.8.1991 for the purpose of pension/pensionary benefits. In CWP No.13836 of 2015, the petitioner Parminder Singh, husband of late Smt.Neena Sharma prays for quashing the impugned order dated 7.4.2015 to the extent denying interest on the delayed release of retrial benefits in respect of her deceased wife. Further grievance has been made for not allowing the refund of Rs. 1,40,073/- along with interest which was wrongly deducted from death-cum-retirement gratuity (DCRG) of the deceased.
(3.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in CWP No.21070 of 2015 may be noticed. The wife of respondent No.1 namely Smt.Neena Sharma was working as Office Superintendent in the RCF, Kapurthala. She met with an accident on 3.6.2009 and ultimately died on 24.12.2011. Respondent No.1 - Parminder Singh being the legal nominee of late Smt.Neena Sharma submitted all the documents for release of DCRG, leave encashment and family pension to him. An amount of Rs. 5,82,057/- as DCRG was released in favour of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 claimed Rs. 7,09,825/- pleading that the RCF had not counted the ad hoc service period from 21.1.1987 to 10.8.1991 rendered by his wife for the purpose of pension and other pensionary benefits. Respondent No.1 filed an application before the CAT. In the written statement filed before the Tribunal, it was inter alia stated by the RCF that the appointment of Smt. Neena Sharma was purely on ad hoc basis and she was not entitled for counting ad hoc service for pensionary benefits under the relevant rules. Late Smt.Neena Sharma continued to serve the department till 30.6.1998 when her services were dispensed with along with other similarly situated employees. For getting the services regularized, all the ad hoc employees had to clear selection from the Railway Recruitment Board. Taking a sympathetic view, the petitioner department re-engaged the services of Smt.Neena Sharma w.e.f 6.7.1988 along with other ad hoc employees. Vide letter dated 15.2.1991, as a special case, the Railway Board decided to regularise the services of ad hoc employees including Smt. Neena Sharma with a condition that regularisation will have prospective effect only, meaning thereby, the ad hoc service period prior to their regularisation will not be counted for any purpose. As a measure of regularization, a type test was held on 31.7.1991 followed by viva voce. Smt.Neena Sharma was found suitable and got regularised as Typist-cum-clerk. Thus, ad hoc arrangement came to an end only w.e.f 10.8.1991 when she was posted against existing vacancies vide order dated 25.9.1991. Later on, she was promoted as Senior Clerk and then Head Clerk. On 8.4.2009, a representation was made by Smt.Neena Sharma to the petitioner department for consideration of her ad hoc service for pensionary benefits. Vide letter dated 28.4.2009, the department replied that her ad hoc service could not be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits as her initial appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and the said period could not be counted. It was further clarified that the letter dated 20.12.1985 was not applicable in her case as the same belonged to casual labourers whereas she was appointed on ad hoc basis. Respondent No.1 filed replication against the above written statement. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 7.4.2015 partially allowed the application filed by respondent No.1 and directed the petitioner department to consider the period of ad hoc service for the purpose of pensionary benefits whereas the claim of interest on delayed release of pensionary benefits had been declined. Hence CWP No.21070 of 2015 by the petitioner-RCF and CWP No.13836 of 2015 by respondent No.1 - Parminder Singh with the prayers mentioned above.;