Chiman Lal vs General Managar, N Rly

O.A./356/2017
(Reserved on 31.07.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad

Original Application No.356 of 2017
st
This the 01 Day of September, 2026.

Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A)

Chiman Lal son of Gillu Mal Gupta R/o Baishali Colony, Khurja District
Bulandshahar.
​ ….Applicant
By Advocate: ​ Mr. L.S. Kushwaha
Versus

1. ​ Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. ​ General Manager Northern Railway, Barauda House, New Delhi.
3.​ Divisional Rail Manager Muradabad, region Muradabad.
…Respondents
By Advocate: ​ Mr. Anil Kumar
​ ​ ​ Mr. K.K. Ojha

ORDER
Learned counsel for the parties are present and heard.
2.​ The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following reliefs:–
i.​ ​ To issue order or direction and set aside the order dated
04.10.2016 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure No.6).
ii. ​ To issue an order or direction to the respondents to consider the
case of applicant regard to grant and release due retirement benefit along
with interest on late payment on all paid retirement benefit by passing
ARPITA
SRIVASTAV
Page 1 of 8

O.A./356/2017
appropriate within order specific time in interest of justice accordance
with law.
iii. ​ Issue a suitable order or direction, which deem fit and proper
this Hon'ble Court may under the circumstances of the case.
iv. ​Award the costs of the original application to the Applicant.
3.​ The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the Original Application, are
that the applicant was appointed in the Railway Department and retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2015.
After his retirement, his pensionary and retiral benefits were sanctioned
by the competent authority; however, the same were paid on
12.01.2016, resulting in a delay of about four months from the date of
his retirement. The applicant submitted a representation dated
05.04.2016 before the respondents seeking payment of interest on the
delayed retiral benefits. He also obtained information under the Right to
Information Act, whereby respondent No. 2 informed him that his
retiral benefits had been paid on 12.01.2016, but interest thereon had
not been paid. Earlier, the applicant had approached this Tribunal by
filing O.A. No. 777 of 2016 seeking payment of interest on the delayed
retiral benefits. The said Original Application was disposed of vide
order dated 03.06.2016, directing the applicant to submit a
representation and the respondents to consider and decide the same
within one month. In compliance thereof, the applicant submitted a
representation dated 29.06.2016 before the competent authority.
Thereafter, the applicant filed Civil Contempt Application No.
330/00167/2016 alleging non-compliance with the order dated
03.06.2016. During the contempt proceedings, the respondents
produced an order dated 04.10.2016 whereby the applicant's claim for
interest was rejected on the ground that there was no provision for
payment of interest on delayed retiral benefits. The applicant has also
raised a claim regarding salary/service benefits for the period from
29.03.2003 to 28.01.2007, contending that although he was not
permitted to sign the attendance register during the said period, he
continued to perform duties pursuant to the directions of the
respondents. Aggrieved by the denial of the aforesaid claims, the
ARPITA
SRIVASTAV
Page 2 of 8

O.A./356/2017
applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of the present Original
Application.
4.​ The respondents have filed their counter affidavit, stating that the
applicant was initially appointed as a Gangman and, after medical
decategorisation, was offered the post of Safaiwala on 07.08.2003. It is
stated that the applicant remained absent from 29.03.2003 to 28.01.2007
and was subsequently absorbed as Hospital Attendant, against which
post he joined on 29.01.2007 and continued in service until his
retirement on 31.08.2015. With regard to the claim for interest on
delayed retiral benefits, the respondents have stated that, in compliance
with the order dated 03.06.2016 passed in O.A. No. 777 of 2016, a
reasoned and speaking order was passed by the competent authority. It
is further stated that the period of unauthorised absence from
24.03.2003 to 28.01.2007 was converted into leave without pay on the
applicant's representation dated 22.12.2015, and the case was thereafter
forwarded to the Accounts Branch on 23.12.2015. According to the
respondents, the pensionary and settlement dues were thereafter paid
vide CO7 No. 326 dated 12.01.2016, and the intervening period was
attributable to procedural processing as well as settlement of the period
of absence. The respondents have further stated that the reply to the
applicant's representation was sent on 14.03.2017.
5.​ The applicant has filed a rejoinder, wherein the averments made in the
Original Application have been reiterated. It is stated that the applicant
had acted in accordance with the directions of his superior officers and
had performed duties during the period in question. Reference has also
been made to the earlier proceedings before this Tribunal in O.A. No.
777 of 2016 and the subsequent contempt proceedings. The applicant
has contended that his pensionary benefits were not correctly settled and
that he had submitted representations and reminders in this regard. It is
further contended that the period from 29.03.2003 to 28.01.2007
6. ​ The applicant, in the supplementary affidavit, has reiterated that he was
working as a Gateman under the Northern Railway and was medically
decategorised after being found unfit for the requisite medical
ARPITA
SRIVASTAV
Page 3 of 8

O.A./356/2017
categories, whereafter he was required to be accommodated against a
suitable alternative post in terms of the applicable provisions of the
Indian Railway Establishment Manual. It is contended that, during the
period following his medical decategorisation, the applicant continued
to mark his presence and discharge duties pursuant to the directions
issued by the respondents, including at the railway gate and thereafter at
Dasna Station, and was ultimately absorbed as Safaiwala. The applicant
submits that, having regard to the orders passed in the earlier
proceedings and the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble High Court
permitting him to approach the competent authority for consideration of
a better and suitable post, the period from 24.03.2003 to 28.01.2007
ought not to have been treated as absence from duty. It is accordingly
contended that the said period should be counted as qualifying service
and consequential service benefits be extended to the applicant.
7.​ The respondents have also filed a supplementary counter affidavit in
reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant. It is stated
therein that the applicant’s retiral benefits were duly paid and that there
was no undue delay attributable to the respondents. It is further stated
that the entries made in the applicant’s service record are not disputed,
which, according to the respondents, show that the applicant remained
unauthorisedly absent from 29.03.2003 to 28.01.2007 and joined as
Hospital Attendant on 29.01.2007. The said period was treated as leave
without pay, and it is contended that the applicant cannot challenge the
same at such a belated stage. The respondents have further referred to
the order dated 06.06.2003, stating that it specifically provided that
salary would not be payable unless the applicant’s attendance was duly
certified. It is also stated that the documents relied upon by the
applicant do not establish that he actually joined the concerned place of
duty or discharged duties pursuant thereto, and, therefore, his absence
during the relevant period was duly recorded in the service record. The
respondents have further stated that the applicant was found suitable for
the post of Safaiwala and was offered the said post, but he did not join
and instead sought absorption against an equivalent post, which led to
ARPITA
SRIVASTAV
Page 4 of 8

O.A./356/2017
the filing of O.A. No. 1421 of 2003, which was subsequently disposed
of by this Tribunal.
8.​ The respondents have also filed an affidavit through the Divisional
Personnel Officer (DPO), Northern Railway, Moradabad, pursuant to
the order dated 21.04.2025. It has been stated that the deponent, being
the DPO, is competent to act for and on behalf of the Railway
Administration in judicial proceedings in terms of the applicable
Railway Board instructions. Reliance has also been placed upon Section
195 of the Railways Act, 1989, which empowers the Railway
Administration to authorise any railway servant or other person to act
for or represent it in proceedings before a court, and Section 23 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits the Government or
the Railway Administration to engage and authorise legal practitioners
to present its case before the Tribunal. The affidavit accordingly states
that the actions taken on behalf of the Railway Administration were
within the authority conferred by the applicable statutory provisions and
Railway Board instructions.
9.​ Another supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents
has been filed on 25.04.2025 wherein facts of the counter and
supplementary counter affidavit have been reiterated.
10​ Heard the learned counsels of both the parties and have perused the
pleadings of both the sides.
11.​ The applicant retired as Hospital Attendant on 31.08.2015 and through
this OA has asked for setting aside the order dt 04.10.2016, passed by
the Respondents and a direction to the Respondents to release his due
retirement benefits along with interest.
12. ​ The Applicant had earlier also filed OA No. 777 of 2016 before this
Tribunal seeking the same relief. Vide order dated 04.10.2016, passed in
compliance with the direction of the Tribunal vide its order dated
03.06.2016, a reasoned and speaking order was passed by the
Competent Authority, giving details of the various retirement benefits
granted and dealing with all the points raised in his representation. In
ARPITA
SRIVASTAV
Page 5 of 8

O.A./356/2017
the current OA, the Applicant has sought setting aside of this order,
which was issued in compliance with the order of the Tribunal, and has
sought release of his retiral benefits along with interest.
13. It is seen from the details given in the order dated 04.10.2016 that all
retirement benefits have already been paid to the pensioner. As per the
Respondents, the delay in payment occurred as the Applicant was
absent from duty from 24.03.2003 to 28.01.2007. The Applicant
submitted his representation dated 22.12.2015 after his retirement,
seeking conversion of the period of his unauthorised absence into leave
without pay. After his representation was decided and leave without pay
was granted, his case for payment of retirement dues was processed and
the dues were paid to him vide CO7 No. 326 dated 12.01.2016.
14. ​ It is seen that the PPO was issued on 30.12.2015, i.e., four months after
retirement, when the period of unauthorised absence was regularised
(Annexure 2 of the OA), and all the retirement dues were also paid only
on 12.01.2016.
15.​ As per the GOI Rules,
“(i)​The Head of Office or other authority responsible for preparing the
pension papers will initiate the pension case two years before the date of
retirement of the Government servant. At this stage, the work will be
essentially that of assembling the information necessary for working out
the qualifying service(or, at a later date, the calculation of average
emoluments). As most delays in pension cases arise from gaps, deficiencies
and imperfections in the service book records every effort should be made
at this stage to remove these while at the same time keeping in mind that
what is intended is not a total overhaul or audit of the entire service book
or records, but only a scrutiny limited to the immediate purpose on hand,
namely the preparation of the pension papers. This process should be
completed in good time and at any rate not later than 8 months in advance
of the date of retirement of the Government servant.
(ii) On reaching that stage i.e., 8 months before the retirement date, the
actual work of preparation of pension papers viz. the reckoning the
qualifying service and the calculation of average emoluments, should be
taken up. Any deficiency or imperfection or omission which still remains in
ARPITA
SRIVASTAV
Page 6 of 8

O.A./356/2017
the service records will be ignored at this stage and the determination of
the qualifying service will be proceeded on the basis of entries in the
service records, whatever the degree of perfection to which it might have
been possible to bring them by that time.”

16. ​ Further, as per the Rules, the orders of the Competent Authority
regarding the counting or otherwise of periods of extraordinary leave, or
periods preceding breaks in service or qualifying service for pension,
should invariably be obtained at the very time the occasion arises and
not later. Such orders should be noted in the service book.
[Government of India Order No. (5) below SR 199 in Swamy's
Compilation of FRs,Part 1 (7th Edition)].
17. ​ In the present case, it is seen that the case for pension was not processed
as the leave period was not regularised, and this was done only after the
Applicant asked for the same post retirement. As per the Rules, it was
the duty of the Respondents to prepare the pension papers in a timely
manner and work out the qualifying service after taking into account the
periods of absence and breaks in service, and the Applicant should have
been informed of the same. The regularisation which happened later
could have been done before retirement, especially at the time of
preparation of the pension papers.
18. The Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala And Ors. Vs. M.
Padmanabhan Nair, 1985 AIR 356, 1985 SCR (2) 476 has held that
pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the
Government to its employees on their retirement but a valuable right
and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and
disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of
interest at the current market rate till actual payment.
19. ​ In A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab (1997) 3 SCC 405 , it was
observed that an employee earns these benefits through long years of
service and is entitled to receive them immediately upon retirement.
Any delay unbacked by valid legal justification makes the employer
liable to pay penal or compensatory interest.
ARPITA
SRIVASTAV
Page 7 of 8

O.A./356/2017
20.​ In H. Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd.
(2003) 3 SCC 40, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that payment of
interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits (specifically
gratuity/pension arrears) is mandatory and not discretionary when the
delay is not caused by the employee
21. ​ Keeping the Government Rules in the matter and the judicial
discussions as stated above in view, the OA has merit and is allowed.
The Respondents are directed to pay all the retiral dues to the Applicant
and, if the same have already been paid, interest at the rate of 6% shall
be paid on all the retiral dues payable from the next day of the date of
superannuation up to the date on which payment was actually made. In
case payment of gratuity has also been delayed, penal interest as per the
Government Rules on the subject shall be paid.
22.​ Accordingly, the Original Application stands disposed of with the
above-mentioned directions. No order as to costs.
23.​ All pending M.A.s, if any, also stand disposed of.



MS MANJU PANDEY
MEMBER (A)​



/Arpita/
ARPITA
SRIVASTAV
Page 8 of 8