BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. versus S.K. BHATNAGAR & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 24-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 10 S.C.R. 279 
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (B.S.N.L.) & ANR. 
v 
S.K. BHATNAGAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9644 of 2013 ) 
OCTOBER 24, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law - Pension - Commutation of - Respondent 
retired from service of appellant-company -
Prior to 
retirement, he had applied for commutation of his pension -
C 
17 years after retirement, grievance raised by respondent in 
. regard to non-receipt of commuted pension amount - Held: 
Tribunal proceeded iri haste in not addressing the dispute in 
detail - High Court also passed a laconic order - Matter 
. remanded back to· High Court for complete and detailed 
D 
consideration of the matter. 
Respondent no.1 retired from the service of 
appellant-company on 31-5-1990. He had applied for 
commutation of his pension prior to his retirement but he 
E 
. had not received the commuted pension amount of 
Rs.87,400/.: and was not receiving his full pension. 
Application was filed by respondent no.·1 before the 
iribunal in the year 2007. The Tribunal observed that 
disputed questions of fact had arisen and, therefore, it 
F 
would not be proper for the Tribunal to decide the case, 
and yet went on to hold that it could not be concluded 
that the amount "of Rs.87 ,400/- had been paid to 
respondent no.1. On appeal, the High Court passed the 
impugned order whi,ch was challenged befo.re this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. While one appreciates that Respondent. 
no.1-claimant cannot prove the negative, viz., that he did 
G 
. 279 
H 
3 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A not receive the cheque allegedly dispatched to him, the 
factum of the passage of 17 years would be good ground 
not to cast a presumption of law against the Appellants. 
Before this Court, a photocopy of the Cash Book 
maintained by the Appellants, presumably in the ordinary 
B course of business, has been furnished. It purportedly 
indicates that three Demand Drafts had been got issued, 
ostensibly against cash deposit. The Tribunal proceeded 
in haste in not addressing the dispute in detail. [Para 2] 
[282-C-E] 
c 
2. Two facts are important - (a) that it is the case of 
Respondent no.1 himself that he applied for commutation 
of his pension before his retirement; and (b) that he was 
not receiving his full pension. This should have alerted 
any Adjudicating Authority to consider the veracity of his 
D claim without invoking the principle of 'presumption in 
law'. [Para 3] [282-G-H; 283-A] 
3. There is no alternative but to remand the matter 
back to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for a 
E· complete and detailed consideration of the matter. It must 
consider all the _evidence collected by both the 
adversaries and come to a definite answer without 
resorting to fastening a 'presumption in law' on either 
party kee'ping the long passage of time in perspective. It 
F must also consider whether the claim stood barred by 
limitation, .or was pregnant of the possibility of being 
rejected for delay and !aches. [Para 4] [283-B-C] 
· 
Union of India v. Tarsem. Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 - held 
inapplicable. · 
· 
G 
Case Law Reference: 
-
(2008) s sec 648 
held inapplicable 
Para 3 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
H 9644 of 2013. 
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (B.S.N.L.) v. S.K. 
281 
BHATNAGAR 
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.11.2010 of the High 
A 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench at Lucknow 
in Writ Petition No. 1580 (S/B) of 2010. 
Dr. A.K. Gautam, Ashok Mathur for the Appellants. 
Y.S. Lohit, Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, 
Siddh.arth Sangal, Anil Kumar Sangal for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This Appeal assails the Order passed on 22.11.2010 
by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at 
Allahabad in Writ Petition No.1580 (S/B) of 2010. Regretfully, 
it is a laconic order in respect of an extremely cryptic decision 
B 
c 
of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Lucknow Bench, 
D 
Luckno'!V rendered on 7.1.2008 in Original Application No.153 
of 2007 .. In the impugned Order it has been noted that 
Respondent no.1 retired from the service of the Appellant-
company on 31.5.1990; he was serving as Telecom District 
Engineer (Chambal), Gwalior. It is also duly noted that 
E 
Respondent no.1 had applied for commutation of his pension. 
It stands admitted that he was receiving pension predicated on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.