Case Note & Summary
Background: The petitioner, a former employee of BSNL, sought disbursal of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and pension. The dispute arose due to the non-processing of his pension papers because of alleged unsettled dues. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and then the High Court under Article 226. Facts: In 2021, the petitioner filed O.A. No.813 of 2021 challenging an order dated 28.08.2021. The Tribunal directed the official respondents to consider his representation and pass an order. Consequently, the Accounts Officer, BSNL Chennai Telephones, passed a speaking order on 23.08.2022, stating that various departmental dues and dues to the Government Tele Communication Employees Cooperation Society Limited remained unsettled, and pension papers could not be processed without their settlement. The petitioner claimed to have made some deposits thereafter. In 2025, he filed O.A. No.426 of 2025 seeking a direction to disburse DCRG and pension. The Tribunal, by order dated 29.04.2025, directed the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 28.01.2025 and pass a reasoned order. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the Tribunal’s order and to direct the 4th respondent to prepare the pension pay order book and process pension disbursal. Legal Issues: The core question was whether the Tribunal’s order was erroneous and whether the petitioner was entitled to pension and DCRG despite the earlier 2022 order citing unsettled dues. Arguments: The petitioner argued that after the 2022 order, he had made deposits towards the dues, which the respondents should verify. The respondents relied on the 2022 speaking order as a bar to pension processing until all dues were cleared. Court’s Analysis: The High Court took note of the 2022 speaking order that detailed the outstanding dues but also acknowledged the petitioner’s claim of having made deposits. It observed that if such deposits had been made, they required verification. The court did not find the Tribunal’s direction to consider the representation erroneous; instead, it added a verification step to give effect to the petitioner’s contention. Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the respondents verify the deposits allegedly made by the petitioner, and if there was no impediment, process the pension papers as directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were ordered or closed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Disbursal of pension and DCRG - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Employee of BSNL sought pension and DCRG; earlier order rejected due to unsettled departmental dues and society dues; Tribunal directed consideration of representation; High Court directed that if employee has made deposits, they be verified and if no impediment, pension processed; Held that verification is necessary before processing pension (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal's direction to consider representation was sufficient and whether the petitioner is entitled to pension and DCRG despite departmental and society dues
Final Decision
Writ petition disposed of with observations that if petitioner has made deposits, the same may be verified and if no impediment, pension papers may be processed as directed by Tribunal. No costs.
Law Points
- Pension disbursal
- verification of dues
- consideration of representation
- no pension until dues settled
- authority to pass reasoned order
- Article 226 of the Constitution
