Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K.N.Rajappan vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 7 April, 2011
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. NO. 820 OF 2009
Thursday, this the 7th day of April, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms.K.NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
K.N.Rajappan
(Retired Mechanical Fitter
Office of the Deputy Chief Engineer
Construction, Southern Railway Madras Central)
Residing at Alum Moottil Padinjattethil
Thekkumkara, Pullichira PO
Quilon District ... Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.TCG Swamy )
versus
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary
to the Government of India
Ministry of Railways
Rail Bhavan
New Delhi
2. The General Manager
Southern Railway
Headquarters, Park Town PO
Chennai - 3
3. The Divisional Personnel Officer
Southern Railway
Chennai Division
Chennai - 3
4. The Chief Medical Officer
Southern Railway
Headquarters Office
Park Town PO, Chennai ... Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil )
The application having been heard on 07.04.2011, the Tribunal
on the same day delivered the following:
2
O R D E R
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The applicant is a retired Mechanical Fitter of Southern Railway, Construction Organization, with his lien as Gangman (Trackman) in the Trivandrum Division of the same Railway. He is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to include him in the Retired Emoployees Liberalised Health Scheme (RELHS) for the purpose of post retirement medical benefits. The non inclusion of the applicant for the said benefit is based on the order in Annexure A-3 Scheme formulated by the Railway Board as per which 20 years of qualifying service in the Railways is necessary for joining the Scheme. While admitting the OA, by an interim order, the respondents were directed to include his name in Annexure A-3 scheme provisionally and continue to provide medical treatment to the applicant, subject to the final outcome of the OA. The short question to be considered is whether non inclusion of the applicant to the aforesaid scheme and the condition requiring 20 years of qualifying service is in any way illegal.
2. We have heard Mr.TCG Swamy, the learned counsel for applicant and Mr.,Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, the learned counsel for respondents. Counsel for respondents contended that the above decision has not become final. However, the decision of this Tribunal is a binding precedent which is still in force.
3. Counsel for applicant placed on reliance the decision of this Court in OA 592/08 and connected cases (Annexure A-6) rendered on 07.10.2009 wherein after elaborate consideration of the matter the 3 provision is held to be illegal in the following lines.
" Taking into account the above decisions of the Apex Court, we are of the considered view that the introduction of the term "20 years of qualifying service", which has created a class within a class is arbitrary, illegal and is opposed to the guaranteed fundamental rights under the provisions of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution and consequently the same appearing in Annexure A-3 is quashed and set aside. In any event, the term 'qualifying service' cannot ignore the temporary service rendered by the railway employees nor can the same be truncated to 50% as provided for in Pension Rules."
4. As such, by virtue of the above decision, the above clause in Annexure A-3 scheme has become non est and non inclusion of the applicant to the benefit of the scheme is illegal. We declare so. The interim order made earlier is made absolute. OA is allowed. No order as to costs.
Dated, the 7th April, 2011. K.NOORJEHAN JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER vs