K L SANTHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT is the Widow of late K.G. Divakaran Pillai, who retired as Yard Master, Raichur; in Guntakal Division of South Central Railway on 31.7.97, had filed O.A. No. 256/2000 before this Tribunal challenging the correctness of the pensionary benefits granted to him and seeking details of payments made and withheld in respect of his retirement dues. During the pendency of that O.A., the original applicant passed away and the applicant herein has impleaded as substitute applicant and in the reply to rejoinder, the respondents came out with details of amounts withheld/recovered by averring in Para 8 as under:

(2.) The respondents have filed a reply statement stating that late K.G. Divakaran Pillai, voluntarily retired from service on 31.7.1997 and all his dues were settled within three months. Moreover, after the implementation of Vth Pay Commission scales, his pension and other consequential benefits were recalculated and paid to him in due course. The entire details were also furnished to the applicant's Husband vide Annexure R/1 dated 1.9.97 and the revised Pension Payment Order was sent to the deceased employee on 20.6.98 (Annexure R/2). Subsequently, another Pension Payment Order was issued duly revising both the pension and the family pension vide Pension Payment Order dated 3.5.2000 (Annexure R/3). It is pleaded that during the year 19.88, i.e. from 1.4.88, he was granted two increments at a time erroneously instead of one as furnished in Paragraph 8 of the reply statement furnished against the rejoinder in O.A. 256/2000, namely, the increment drawn, on 1.4.86 - i.e. Rs. 2100 in scale of Rs. 1600-2660 (RSRP), on 1.4.87 - i.e. Rs. 2150, on 1.4.88 - i.e. Rs. 2250 instead of Rs. 2200. The increment slab is Rs. 50. Though one increment was erroneously given, the deceased employee did not bring this fact to the notice of the administration and due to this, he had enjoyed recurring benefits including Dearness Allowance till his retirement. However, it came to the notice of the administration only while processing the settlement and pensionary benefits and owing to this, an amount of Rs. 12,275 was overdrawn by the husband of the applicant. Respondents contended that the claim of the applicant that the deceased employee was entitled to stepping up of pay is not correct. He never made any representation to that effect to the administration to make it at par with that of his juniors. Even if it is necessitated, it should have been done with the concurrence of the Associated Accounts. By submitting the relevant pages of service register (Annexure R/4), it is contended by the respondents that the additional increments aforesaid have been granted to him erroneously and the administration was right in effecting the recoveries of the said amount. While submitting the pension papers, the applicant's husband had not made any objection to that effect nor made any separate representation for the purpose. It was only a clerical error. While preparing the increment list the Clerk provided one extra increment inadvertently and the same went on unnoticed by the office. Though the beneficiary had full knowledge of the same, he did not bring this fact to the notice of the administration. The overpayments are recoverable as per Rule 15, Sub-rules 2 and 3 of Chapter-II of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which says that it shall be adjusted against the amount of DCRG. The O.A. is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE respondents have filed additional reply statement to the rejoinder contending that as per Annexure R/4 dated 29.8.97, his pension was fixed and other settlement benefits were worked out and paid to the applicant's husband. THE case of the applicant as to the stepping up of pay is only an after thought. THE deceased employee could have made objection or represented while submitting his pension papers if he had nay grievance at that point of time.