South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Raj Kumari Arora and Anr.

1. This review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1& 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by respondent Smt. Raj Kumari Arora with the following prayers:- “For the facts and circumstances stated in above, it is most respectfully prayed that their lordship of this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to review its order dated 02.12.2019 in WP (C) No. 3981/2017 and direct the respondents to fix the pay of applicant/ Review Petitioner after taking into account the intervening period of suspension and denial of joining and after completing said exercise release the entire amount towards gratuity, leave encashment, commutation, insurance amount and pension as well as arrears as per the revision after 6th & 7th CPC. It is also requested to award 12°/o interest on aforesaid dues from 2002 till the actual date of payment. Signing Date:01.06.2023 17:19 To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The order dated 02.12.2019 is sought to be reviewed. The relevant portion of the said order giving the background of the case and the view of this Court is reproduced hereunder:- “1. The South Delhi Municipal Corporation ('South DMC') has challenged an order dated 10th August, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT'), Principal Bench, New Delhi disposing of O.A. No.3006/2013 filed by Respondent NO. 1 and holding that she shall be entitled to all consequential benefits i.e. salary from 21st August, 1990 till 30th April, 2002 (the date of retirement), re-fixation of her pension, gratuity etc., payment of GPF with due interest under the GPF Rules and other retiral benefits.

2. At the outset it requires to be noticed that while directing notice to issue in this petition on 9th May, 2017, this Court passed an interim order to the effect that the Petitioner need not pay Respondent No. 1 the amount claimed by the Respondent in respect of the period between 20th September, 1991 and 30th April, 2002, during which she did not render service, till the next date of hearing.

3. The facts in brief are that the Respondent No. 1 was working as a nursing sister with the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD') at the Colony Hospital, Malviya Nagar. On 21st August, 1990, she was placed under suspension for alleged misconduct. On 20th September, 1991, the suspension was revoked and on the same date she was transferred from the hospital in Malviya Nagar to the Kasturba Hospital, Darya Ganj. The Respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 1543/1991 in the Court of the Civil Judge challenging the transfer order. Initially, the learned Single Judge stayed the operation of the transfer order. However, despite a stay of the said transfer order, the Respondent No. 1 failed to report either at the Colony Hospital in Malviya Nagar or at the Kasturba Hospital in Darya Ganj.

4. On 6th January, 1994, the MCD issued a charge-sheet upon the Respondent No. 1, which contained three Articles of Charge. During this entire period, Respondent No. 1 did not report for duty. Suit No. 1543/1991 was listed before the learned Single Judge on 27th January, 1997, when the following order was passed in the suit: "WS to the amended plaint filed. Copy given. Arguments part heard. It has been stated on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff can join her duties as a Nursing Sister at Kasturba Hospital and an order to this effect shall be issued by the MCD within a week from today. Let the plaintiff join the above Hospital on receipt of the order. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the department enquiry that is pending against the plaintiff should be expedited. Issue Court notice to the Director, Vigilance, MCD to send the concerned Presenting Officer, alongwith the record of the enquiry to this Court on next date of hearing. To come up for further arguments on 20.2.97. As required by the above AO, an attested copy of this order be given to him and also the Court notice be given to him for dasti service."

5. Despite the above order, the Respondent No. 1 did not report for duty. In 2001, the Enquiry Officer appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the Respondent No. 1 submitted a report holding the Respondent No.1 guilty of all the three charges. The report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority ('DA').

6. Meanwhile, on 30th April, 2002, the Respondent No. 1 superannuated. By way of a resolution dated 17th December, 2003, the MCD decided that she should be punished with a 10% cut in her pension for a period of three years. The representation of the Respondent No. 1 against the penalty was partly accepted, and the 10% cut was reduced to 5% by way of a resolution dated 6th July, 2004. Against the above penalty order, the Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Lieutenant Governor, GNCTD who was also the Appellate Authority ('AA'). Simultaneously, she filed an O.A. No. 2619/2010. At this stage, it requires to be noticed that the suit challenging the transfer order also stood transferred to the CAT and was renumbered as T.A. NO. 1470/2009. The said T.A. stood disposed of by the CAT by an order dated 22nd January, 2010, giving the Respondent No. 1 liberty to challenge the punishment awarded to her in the disciplinary proceedings.

7. The Appellate Authority, by way of an order dated 29th May, 2012, allowed the appeal and exonerated Respondent No. 1 with "all consequential benefits." Thereafter, an office order was issued on 3rd July, 2012 communicating this decision of the AA.

8. O.A. No.2619/2010 was disposed of on 9th August, 2011, directing the Petitioners herein to pass final orders in the appeal of the Respondent No.1. After the aforementioned order dated 29th May, 2012 of the AA, the Respondent No. 1 filed O.A. NO. 3006/2013 before the CAT seeking the consequential benefits awarded thereby. The aforementioned O.A. was disposed of by the CAT by way of the impugned order dated 1oth August, 2016 holding that there was no ambiguity regarding payment of all consequential benefits, and, accordingly, a direction, as noticed hereinabove, was issued.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the impugned order of the CAT to the extent that it directs that pursuant to the order of the AA, the Petitioners would have to pay the Respondent No.1 salary for the period from 21st August, 1990 and 30th April, 2002, i.e. the date of her retirement is unsustainable in law.” [3. It is pertinent to mention here that the present petitioner had challenged the final order dated 02.12.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3981/2017 by filing Special Leave to appeal (C) No. 6374/2020 titled as ‘ Raj Kumari Arora vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06.07.2020 has passed the order, which is reproduced hereunder:- “We have heard Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even though the petitioner retired on 30th April, 2002 and her retiral benefits were paid only in the year 2012 and that the petitioner would be entitled to interest on ·the delayed pension and retiral benefits. If that is the grievance of the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to work out her remedy in accordance with law including filing of any petition before the High Court. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of.”

4. The third paragraph of the order dated 06.07.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it clear that although the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed but the liberty was granted to the petitioner to work out her remedy in accordance with law, including filing of any petition before this Court for claiming interest on the delayed pension and retiral benefits as she had retired on 30th April, 2002 but her retiral benefits were released only in the year 2022.

5. On the strength of the order dated 06.07.2020 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the review petitioner has filed the present petition but the prayer clause has travelled much beyond the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted leave and liberty to pursue the remedies only confined to claiming the interest on delayed payment of pension and retiral benefits, so, this Court is inclined to consider the review petition filed by the petitioner up to the said extent only.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as the learned counsel for Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘MCD’) and have also gone through the record. Our considered view is as under:- 6.[1] The South Delhi Municipal Corporation (now MCD) had challenged the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’), Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.3006/2013 and while disposing of the same O.A., CAT was pleased to grant the following reliefs:-