Mr. B. S. Rawat, CI-DTTE v. Laj Handa

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Tribunal’) in Original Application No.194/2018, titled Smt. Laj Handa v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent no.1 herein and directed the petitioners to count the service rendered by the respondent no.1 with the respondent no.2 /Delhi Development Authority (DDA) herein from 13.12.1967 to 14.05.1974 on a notional basis and to fix her pension accordingly.

2. The respondent no.1 had filed the above O.A. before the learned Tribunal, contending that she had served the respondent no.2/DDA with effect from 13.12.1967 to 14.05.1974. She contended that she had applied through the proper channel and was appointed as a Crafts Instructor (Civil) in the office of the petitioner no.2 herein. She joined her duty with the petitioner no.2 on 15.05.1974 and finally superannuated on 31.05.2002. In between she had proceeded on deputation to the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 19.05.1982 and was repatriated on 01.03.2000. As the petitioners refused to let her join back alleging that she had overstayed her deputation from 01.07.1988 to 28.02.2000, she filed OA 2771/2001. It was pursuant to an order passed by the learned Tribunal that she was allowed to join back and her period of overstay on deputation was regularized.

3. She also filed an O.A., being O.A. no.4575/2014, inter alia, praying that her previous service rendered with the respondent no.2/DDA from 13.12.1967 to 14.05.1974 be counted for the purposes of pension.

4. The learned Tribunal, however, held that as in the O.A., the respondent no.1 had prayed for various reliefs which could not be combined in a single application, therefore, with respect to pension and other retirement benefits, liberty was granted to the respondent no.1 to raise these issues through separate petitions.

5. The respondent no.1 thereafter made a representation to the petitioners, praying for counting her services with the respondent no.2/DDA, which representation was rejected by the petitioners vide Order dated 29.05.2017, stating therein that the said request cannot be processed as the relevant service record, being old, could not be traced by the respondent no.2/DDA.

6. Aggrieved by the said decision, the respondent no.1 filed the O.A No. 194/2018.

7. As noted hereinabove, the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.A., inter alia, observing that the mere inability to trace her service record, was not a valid ground to deny her the benefit of counting the service rendered by her with the respondent no.2/DDA, especially when it was admitted that she had duly rendered such service. The plea of the petitioners that the respondent no.1 had not tendered her technical resignation before joining the petitioners’ service was also rejected, observing as under: “8A. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents referred para 2.[1] of OM dated 17.08.2016 in support of his argument which is not tenable because the respondents never raised objection in the reply that she has not tendered her technical resignation and even if it is assumed that she has not technically resigned, this objection at this belated stage is not tenable in the eyes of law.”

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterates that the respondent no.1 had not applied to the petitioners through proper channels and had not tendered her technical resignation before joining the petitioners. He submits that there is no entry in the service record of the respondent no.1 maintained by the petitioners, indicating that she worked with the respondent no.2/DDA.

9. He also places reliance on a communication dated 08.10.1976, addressed by the respondent no.2/DDA to the respondent no.1, asking her to furnish the required documents for her request for an extension of the lien to be considered.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 reiterates that the respondent no.1 had applied for and subsequently joined the services with the petitioners, through the proper channel and having tendered her technical resignation. He submits that the same is also evident from the letter dated 14.05.1974, by which the respondent no.2/DDA relieved her from the duties to join her post with the petitioners. He further submits that no such plea was raised earlier by the petitioners in their reply submitted before the learned Tribunal, and therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly declined to consider the same.

11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties.

12. The fact that the respondent no.1, before joining the petitioners, was working with the respondent no.2/DDA between 1967 and 1974 cannot be disputed, especially in view of the stand taken by the respondent no.2/DDA before the learned Tribunal.

13. The letter dated 14.05.1974 issued by the respondent no.2/DDA, relieving the respondent no.1 from service reads as under: “Consequent upon the selection of Miss Laj Wadhwa, Planning D/Man as Craft Instructor (Senior) in the I.T.I, Pusa, New Delhi, she is hereby relieved from this office from the after-noon of 14th May, 1974. The transfer of the official will be governed by the instructions contained in the Ministry of Home Affairs’ letter No.O.M.70/62/62/Estt(A) dated 22.1.[6] as amended from time to time (if any).”

14. The above would clearly show that the respondent no.2/DDA had been informed of the selection of the respondent no.1 with the Industrial Training Institute (ITI) Pusa. The respondent no.2/DDA never raised any objection to the same. After a long period of time, when the respondent no.1 was not granted the benefit of her earlier service, she made a representation thereagainst, which was rejected by the petitioners solely on the ground that the record, being old, could not be traced by the respondent no.2/DDA. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly rejected this submission of the petitioners.

15. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no.1 had not applied through the proper channels and had joined the petitioners without tendering her technical resignation cannot be accepted, especially when no such grievance was raised by the respondent no.2/DDA at the relevant period. On the contrary, from the letter dated 14.05.1974, it is evident that the respondent no.2/DDA was fully aware of the respondent no.1 joining ITI Pusa as a Crafts Instructor (Civil). This raises a presumption that she would have applied through the proper channel and would have tendered her resignation from her position with the respondent no.2/DDA, which was duly accepted.