KC BIJORIA vs Bsnl

1
O.A. No. 200/00241/2017
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR

(Through virtual mode)

Original Application No.200/00241/2017
th
Jabalpur, this Thursday, the 15 day of October, 2026

HON’BLE SHRI RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MS MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

K.C. Bijoria, S/o Komal Chand, Retired as SDE
Aged about 66 years, R/o- 24, Paras Colony,
Behind Parijat Building, Cherital, Jabalpur
District Jabalpur 482002 (Μ.Ρ.),
- Applicant

( By Advocate –Shri Samveg Tripathi)

V e r s u s
1. Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd..
BSNL Bhawan, J C Mathur Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi-110 001.

2. Chief General Manager,
Tele communication, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
BSNL Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (MP)- 462015.

3. Controller of Communication Accounts,
Ministry of Communication & IT,
First Floor, Durdarshan Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal, Bhopal (M.P.)- 462001.

4. General Manager, Telecom District,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., CTO Compound,
Jabalpur, (Μ.Ρ.)- 482002
- Respondents

RAJ
RAJUL
NAMDE
O
2026.10.
16
12:22:08
+05'30'
UL
NAM
DEO
( By Advocate – Shri Rahul Rawat)


Page 1 of 7

2
O.A. No. 200/00241/2017
O R D E R
BY MALLIKA ARYA, AM:-
By filing this O.A., the applicant is not challenging any particular
order but is claiming interest on delayed payment of gratuity, leave
encashment and CGEGIS.
2. The facts of the case in brief is that the applicant was initially
appointed as Junior Telecom officer (JTO) in the respondent department
on 04.12.1971. He has retired from service as Divisional Engineer on
attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2006. The applicant was
served with a charge sheet dated 02.11.2001. The applicant denied all the
charges as alleged on him. However, full-fledged Departmental Enquiry
was initiated against him and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The
disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by one
stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative
effect vide order dated 26.04.2004. Feeling aggrieved with the orders of
disciplinary authority, the applicant preferred an appeal on 23.06.2004,
which was decided vide order dated 18.11.2008 with an advice to initiate
de-novo proceedings from the stage of inquiry. Since, denovo enquiry was
not concluded even after a considerable time, the applicant filed O.A. No.
533/2012 with a limited prayer to conclude the disciplinary proceedings.
RAJ
RAJUL
NAMDE
O
2026.10.
16
12:22:08
+05'30'
UL
NAM
DEO
Thereafter, during pendency of O.A. 533/2012, the disciplinary authority
has exonerated the applicant from all the allegations vide order dated
Page 2 of 7

3
O.A. No. 200/00241/2017
28.09.2012 (Annexure A-1). After exoneration the applicant preferred
series of representations to provide him all consequential benefits with
effect from 28.02.2006. However, the same was paid to the applicant after
a lapse of nearly about seven years without interest. When the interest on
delayed payment has not been paid to the applicant, he preferred a
representation dated 23.04.2013 (Annexure A-6). However, no heed was
paid by the respondents towards the representation of the applicant. Hence
this O.A.
3. Upon notice, the respondents have filed their reply wherein it has
been submitted that the applicant retired on 28.02.2006 and filed the
present O.A. in 2017 i.e. after a lapse of 11 years. There is no explanation
for delay in filing this O.A. Apart from above, the department enquiry was
going against the applicant and the applicant has been exonerated vide
order dated 28.09.2012. Immediately thereafter the amount of gratuity,
leave encashment, and CGEGIS have been paid and hence there is no
delay.
4. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the pleadings and the documents on record. We have also gone
through the judgments advanced by the counsel for the applicant in
support of his case.
RAJ
RAJUL
NAMDE
O
2026.10.
16
12:22:08
+05'30'
5. In the present case, we will look into the aspect of limitation at
UL
NAM
DEO
the outset. The applicant retired from service in 2006 and got exonerated
from charges in 2012. The applicant did not approach any court of law
Page 3 of 7

4
O.A. No. 200/00241/2017
and kept making representations to the respondents. He has filed this OA
in 2017, without any application for condonation of delay.
6. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for
short ‘the Act’) deals with limitation for filing O.A. before this Tribunal,
which reads as under:-
“21. Limitation.- (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,-
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in
clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in
connection with the grievance unless the application is made,
within one year from the date on which such final order has been
made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is
mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been
made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without
such final order having been made, within one year from the
date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where-
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made
had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the
period of three years immediately preceding the date on which
the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes
exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such
order relates; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had
been commenced before the said date before any High Court.
the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made
within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be,
clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months
from the said date, whichever period expires later.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one
year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of section (1) or, as the
case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if
the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause
for not making the application within such period.”

RAJ
RAJUL
NAMDE
O
2026.10.
16
12:22:08
+05'30'
UL
NAM
DEO
Page 4 of 7

5
O.A. No. 200/00241/2017
The aforesaid rule shows clear case of negligence on the part of
applicant in approaching this Tribunal within a year of original cause of
action and not a single reason and no sufficient cause shown in the
application for condonation of delay in filing this OA.
7. In Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors . (2010) 8 SCC
685, Their Lordships held on the law of limitation as under:
“….26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite
consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These
principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on
the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has
accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other
party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own
party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends
of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in
implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to
deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law
as a result of his action vigilantly.‖ [Emphasis supplied]
8. Secondly, even on the merits of case, the applicant was served
with a charge sheet on 02.11.2001. During pendency of the inquiry
proceedings, the applicant retired on 28.02.2006. The disciplinary
proceeding against the applicant got dropped on 28.09.2012 and the
respondents has paid Gratuity, Leave encashment, and CGEGIS, which
has not been denied by the applicant. The issue which remains to be
decided is whether the applicant is entitled for interest on delayed
RAJ
RAJUL
NAMDE
O
2026.10.
16
12:22:08
+05'30'
UL
NAM
DEO
payment of the above retiral dues.
Page 5 of 7

6
O.A. No. 200/00241/2017
9. It is noted that the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against
the deceased applicant and during pendency of the said proceedings, the
deceased applicant stood retired, therefore, the amount of his gratuity and
leave encashment was withheld till the conclusion of the disciplinary
proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held in catena of
judgments that no gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until
the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of
final orders thereon. Therefore, the order of withholding gratuity and
leave encashment during pendency of disciplinary proceeding is proper
hence, there was no case for the applicant to get it released till the
pendency of the above proceedings.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman-cum-
Managing Director vs. Sri Rabindranath Choubey , AIR 2020 SC 2978
has held as under:-
“During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the Disciplinary
Authority may withhold payment of gratuity, for ordering the recovery
from gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the
company if have been guilty of offences/misconduct as mentioned in
Sub Section (6) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or to
have caused pecuniary loss to the company by misconduct or
negligence, during his service including service rendered on deputation
or on reemployment after retirement. However, the provisions of
Section 7(3) and 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 should be
kept in view in the event of delayed payment, in the case the employee
is fully exonerated.” (Emphasis supplied)

RAJ
RAJUL
NAMDE
O
2026.10.
16
12:22:08
+05'30'
UL
NAM
DEO
10.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Veerabhadram
vs. Govt. of A.P. , (1999) 9 SCC 43 para 7 held as under:-
Page 6 of 7

7
O.A. No. 200/00241/2017
“7. The payment of gratuity was withheld, in the present case,
since the criminal prosecution was pending against the appellant
when he retired. Rule 52(c) of the A. P. Revised Pension Rules,
1980 expressly permits the State to withhold gratuity during the
pendency of any judicial proceedings against the employee. In
the present case, apart from Rule 52(c), there was also an express
order of the Tribunal which was binding on the appellant and the
respondent under which the Tribunal had directed that death-
cum-retirement gratuity was not to be paid to the appellant till
the judicial proceedings were concluded and final orders were
passed thereon. In view of this order as well as in view of Rule
52(c), it cannot be said that there was any illegal withholding of
gratuity by the respondent in the case of the appellant. We
therefore, do not see any reason to order payment of any interest
on the amount of gratuity so withheld.”

11. From the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered
opinion that after dropping of disciplinary proceedings all the retiral dues
have been paid to the applicant immediately thereafter. Hence the
question of paying interest does not arise.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion it becomes clear that there is
no deliberate delay in making payment of aforesaid retiral dues nor any
allegation of deliberate delay have been made in the O.A. Accordingly,
we find no merit in the claim of the applicant and the OA deserves to be
dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
RAJ
RAJUL
NAMDE
O
2026.10.
16
12:22:08
+05'30'

(Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
rajul
UL
NAM
DEO
Page 7 of 7