Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) & Anr. v. S.K. Bhatnagar & Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: T.S. Thakur
Vikramajit Sen
Judgment Date: 2013-10-24
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; the impugned High Court order set aside; remanded to the Allahabad High Court for a complete and detailed consideration of the matter with the evidence, including whether the claim is barred by limitation or delayed by laches, for a fresh adjudication.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; remanded for fresh adjudication by higher court

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) & Anr.

Respondents

S.K. Bhatnagar
Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Dr. A.K. Gautam
• Ashok Mathur

Counsels for Respondents

• Y.S. Lohit
• Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj
• Mridula Ray Bharadwaj
• Siddharth Sangal
• Anil Kumar Sangal

Case Synopsis & Summary

This civil appeal concerns a pension-commutation dispute arising from Respondent No.1, a BSNL retiree, who claimed Rs.87,400 as commuted pension that he did not receive. He retired on 31 May 1990 and had applied for commutation before retirement, but years later he asserted non-receipt of the commuted amount. In 2007 he filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Lucknow, which observed that disputed questions of fact had arisen and thus could not decide the merits; yet it directed BSNL to prove receipt of the cheque, noting it could not be concluded that the Rs.87,400 had been paid. The Allahabad High Court, in 2010, passed a laconic order affirming that view. The Supreme Court granted leave and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that while the claimant cannot prove the negative, the passage of 17 years should not lead to a presumption against the appellants; photocopies of BSNL’s cash book allegedly showing three drafts were placed on record. It faulted the CAT’s haste in not addressing the dispute in detail. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 was discussed as not assisting Respondent No.1. The Court held there is no alternative but to remand for a complete, detailed consideration of the evidence, including whether the claim is barred by limitation or delayed by laches, for fresh adjudication by the Allahabad High Court. The decision clarifies that no presumption should arise merely from delay, and final determination must consider all evidence.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

presumption in law
continuing wrong (doctrine)
delay and laches
limitation

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the evidence (BSNL cash book and drafts) indicates payment of the commuted pension; the CAT erred by not resolving disputed questions of fact and proceeded to require proof of receipt. They argued that the long delay should not give rise to a presumption against BSNL and that Tarsem Singh does not assist Respondent No.1; the matter should be remanded for thorough factual adjudication.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondent No.1 claimed non-receipt of the commuted pension and sought Rs.87,400; relied on the alleged drafts and argued that the claim is not barred by limitation and that delay should not defeat relief; urged that the CAT’s order was a correct exercise of discretion in light of disputed facts.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union of India v Tarsem Singh	(2008) 8 SCC 648	Mentioned Only	Cited to discuss applicability of Tarsem Singh; the Court found it inapplicable and stated it does not assist Respondent No.1.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ## [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 B [T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] - - - _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. G ## Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. While one appreciates that Respondent. no.1-claimant cannot prove the negative, viz., that he did . 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. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **VIKRAMAJIT SEN,** J. 1. Leave granted. c 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 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Lucknow Bench, 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 Appellantcompany on 31.5.1990; he was serving as Telecom District Engineer (Chambal), Gwalior. It is also duly noted that Respondent no.1 had applied for commutation of his pension. It stands admitted that he was receiving pension predicated on the commutation viz., not full pension. Neither of the Orders state the date of the application for commutation of pension, but in the hearing before us it has been indicated that this request was made in 1988. The Appellants' submission before the Division Bench of the High Court was that a Cheque No.312436 dated 18.12.1990 had.been dispatched to Respondent no.1 at his Lucknow address. Before this Court, · the contention is that payment was made by a Demand Draft bearing even number. It was in 2007 that Respondent no.1 filed the abovementioned Original Application before the CAT, Lucknow Bench which passed the aforementioned cryptic Order on 7.1.2008. Since Respondent no.1 had retired on 31.5.1990 his grievance of having not received the commuted pension D E F G H 282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A amount of Rs.87,400/- has come after the passage of 17 long years. It is palpably cl.ear that this inordinate delay has been glossed over in the impugned Order. So far as the CAT, Lucknow Bench is concerned it has firstly observed that disputed questions of fact have arisen and, therefore, it would B not be proper for the Tribunal to decide the case yet, inexplicably it has gone. on to opine that it cannot . be concluded th.at the . aforesaid amount of Rs.87,400/- had been paid to ApplicantRespondent no.1. It has directed B.S.N.L. to furnish within one month valid proof of receipt of cheque by the ApplicantC Respondent no.1, failing which an adverse inference would be drawn in law. While we appreciate that Respondent no.1claimant cannot prove the negative, viz., that he did not receive the cheque allegedly dispatched to him, the fact\,lm of the passage of 17 years would be ·good ground not to cast a D presumption of law against the Appellants. It appears that the State Bank of India has pleaded that the records, being more than ten years old, stand destroyed, and therefore no information in this regard could be furnished. In these circumstances how is the dispute to be decided. Before us, a photocopy of the Cash Book maintained by the Appellants, presumably in the E ordinary 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. F 3~ Learned counsel for Respondent no.1 has drawn our attention to _-Union of India_ & _Ors. v. Tarsem Singh_ (2008) 8 . sec 648 wherein this Court has held that normally service matter claims are rejected either on limitation or on the grounds of delay/laches; the exception being cases of continuing wrong. G We cannot appreciate how this advances the case of Respondent no.1. 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 H any Adjudicating Authority to consider the veracity of his claim BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM L "fD. (B.S.N.L.) _v._ S.K. 283 BHATNAGAR [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] > without invoking the principle of 'presumption in law'. Tarsem Singh, therefore, does not assist the case of Respondent no.1 a wit. A > 4. We find that there is no alternative but to remand the matter back to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for a 8 complete and detailed consideration of the matter. It must consider all the evidence collected by both the adversaries and > come to a definite answ~J without resorting to fastening a 'presumption in law' on either party keeping the long passage of time in perspective. It must also consider whether the claim stood barred by limitation, or was pregnant of the possibility of C being rejected for delay and laches. 5. The impugned Order is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh adjudication. The Appeal is allowed accordingly. We hasten to clarify that nothing D contained in these presents shall be construed to indicate our views on the merits of the case. B.8.8. Appeal allowed.