Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Rajikumar R vs D/O Post on 19 August, 2020
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
OA No.180/00158/2020
Wednesday, this the 19th day of August, 2020
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. P.Madhavan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr.K.V.Eapen, Administrative Member
Raji Kumar R.,
Postman, General Post Office
Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.
Residing at Raji Bhavan, Alamcode P.O.
Thiruvananthapuram-695 102. Applicant
(Advocate: Mr.Vishnu Chempazhanthiyil)
Versus
1. Union of India represented by
The Secretary & Director General
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Kerala Postal Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 033.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Thiruvananthapuram North Postal Division
Thiruvananthapuram-695 001. Respondents
(Advocate: Mr.Brijesh A.S., ACGSC)
This OA having been heard on 19th August, 2020, the Tribunal delivered the
following order on the same day:
ORDER
By P.Madhavan, Judicial Member This is an OA filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Call for the records relating to Annexure A1 to A3 and to declare that the applicant is entitled to be reckoned as appointed to the cadre of Postman with effect from 29.12.2003, along with his batch mates and to bring the applicant under the Pension Scheme in force as on 29.12.2003.2
(ii) Direct the respondents to extend the benefit of Annexure A3 to the applicant.
(iii) Direct the respondents to extend the benefit of Annexure A4, A5 & A7 orders to the applicant.
(iv) Direct the respondents to extend to the applicant the same treatment as granted to the applicants in Annexure A6 and A8.
2. In short, the case of the applicant is that he was selected to the post of Postman under the unfilled vacancies in promotional quota as per Annexure A1 and he joined service in Trivandrum District. According to the applicant, the appointment order Annexure A1 was received only on 17.12.2003 and he had to undergo training for 10 days. He had actually joined service only after 1.2.2004. So, according to the applicant he was denied the benefit of old pension scheme and he was enrolled only in the new pension scheme. According to the applicant, he is entitled to get old pension scheme as it was not his fault for the delay in appointment. According to him, as per Annexure A3, OM dated 5.3.2008 he is entitled to get into old pension scheme and all the other persons appointed along with him were already granted the same benefit. But the respondents had not granted the benefit of old pension scheme to him. So, he is seeking for granting of old pension scheme.
3. The respondents appeared and filed their detailed reply admitting that 16 officials were selected for Trivandrum District for the vacancies in 2001 and 2002 and owing to some clarification to be obtained from the Directorate, their appointment became late. They were appointed only after 1.4.2004 by the time the new pension scheme came into effect with effect from 1.1.2004 and 16 officials selected including the applicant came under the new pension scheme. Later 15 candidates except the applicant were brought under the old pension scheme in compliance with the orders of this Tribunal.
3
4. The respondents have no objection in granting the benefits as per Annexure A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9 and A10 which were granted to similarly situated candidates who were brought under the old pension scheme. The respondents are ready to extend the benefits to the applicants in OA 624/2003 and similar cases which is produced as Annexure A4. The applicants in OA 624/2003 were granted arrears for 3 years only in tune with the law laid down by the Apex Court in M.R.Gupta vs. UOI (1995) 5 SCC and in the case of Jaidev Gupta vs. State of HP 1997 11 SCC 648.
5. It is also submitted that the applicant is eligible to be brought under the old pension scheme as per OM No.57/04/2019-P&PW(B) dated 17.2.2020 issued by the Department of Pensions & Pensioners' Welfare of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions.
6. On a perusal of the pleadings, we find that there is no dispute between the parties and the respondents are liable to give the benefit of the old pension scheme to the applicant. Hence the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to take necessary action to include the applicant in the old pension scheme and give the benefits as admitted by the respondents in their reply, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. OA is disposed of.
(K.V.Eapen) (P.Madhavan)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
aa.
4
Annexures filed by the applicant:
Annexure A1: Copy of the Memo No.B3/Rectt/2002 dated 17.12.2003 issued by the
3rd respondent.
Annexure A2: Copy of the communication No.B/Rectt/Postman dated 9.1.2004
issued by the Sub Divisional Inspector, Attingal. Annexure A3: Copy of the O.M.No.38/58/06-P&PW(A) dated 5.3.2008 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pension& Pensioners' Welfare.
Annexure A4: Copy of the order dated 2.4.2012 in OA No.1090/2011 of this Tribunal.
Annexure A5: Copy of the order dated 3.8.2009 in OA No.488/2008 of this Tribunal.
Annexure A6: Copy of the order dated 12.112013 in OA 430/2013 of this Tribunal. Annexure A7: Copy of the order dated 10.2.2012 in OA No.609/2011 of this Tribunal.
Annexure A8: Copy of the order dated 27.3.2013 in OA No.1117/2012 of this Tribunal.
Annexure A9: Copy of the order dated 17.10.2008 in OA No.66/2008 of this Tribunal.
Annexure A10: Copy o the common order dated 17.6.2011 in OA No.102/2010, OA 838/2010 and OA 972/2010 of this Tribunal.
Annexure A11: Copy of the submission dated 10.1.2018 of the applicant addressed to the 2nd respondent.
Annexures filed by the respondents:
Annexure R1: Copy of the order dated BIE/SDN/Misc dated 15.5.2013. Annexure R2: Copy of the order No.BIE/SDN/Misc dated 09.01.2014.