ONKAR SINGH S/O SHRI TEK CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GRIEVANCE of applicant in this case is that he retired as class IV on 31.7.2004 and was granted provisional pension for a period of six months w.e.f. 1.8.2004 to 31.1.2005 vide order dated 17.11.2004 ( page 9) but thereafter in spite of his repeated representations till date neither he has been given provisional pension nor any orders have been passed thereon. It is submitted by the applicant that other retiral benefits have also not been paid to him till date. Therefore, he had no other option but to file the present OA.

(2.) Respondents, on the other hand, have stated that Shri Onkar Singh who had retired as TBOP Mailman SRO RMS �SH� Division Meerut Cantt. joined the Department on 31.01.1964 but he remained absent from duty w.e.f. 23.2.1977 to 29.7.1993 i.e. 16 years, 5 months and 7 days without any prior permission of the competent authority. He was allowed to resume his duty by SRO Meerut Cantt RMS vide letter dated 28.7.1993. Consequently the applicant resumed his duty on 30.7.1993. Even though chargesheet under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 against the applicant was issued on 12.6.1993. On decision of this chargesheet, applicant was awarded with the punishment of one step down in his pay for one year and the period of his absence w.e.f. 23.2.1977 to 29.7.1993 was also treated as dies-non by the SRM, Saharanpur vide letter dated 8.8.1997. Accordingly his pension case was sent to DAP Lucknow by the SRM, Saharanpur but the same was returned with certain objections as SRM was not competent to allow the applicant to resume his duty and the permission of the Directorate was necessary. Under Rule 12 of the CCS(Leave) Rules 1972, it is only the President of India who can grant leave for more than 5 years. Accordingly he was allowed provisional minimum pension for a period of six months vide letter dated 17.11.2004. The case of applicant was referred to the Directorate by the Regional Office Bareilly vide their letter dated 29.9.2005 for necessary guidance and the progress report is awaited.

(3.) COUNSEL for applicant pointed out that there is some typographical error on page 8 of the paper book as applicant's date of birth was wrongly recorded thereon. However, unless original document is seen, no comment can be given on this. It is for the authorities to cross check the date from the original records.