Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
T.T.Philipose vs Union Of India on 22 December, 2016
Author: P.Gopinath
Bench: P.Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Applicaton Nos.180/00836/2015, 180/00837/15
and 180/00157/16 with M.A No.180/00255/2016
Thursday, this the 22nd day of December, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS.P.GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
O.A No.180/00836/2015
T.T.Philipose
S/o.Late Thomas T.P
Ex-Sub Postmaster, Ayiroor Post Office
Thadeethramyl House
Thiruvalla Taluk
Kuriynoor Post
Pathanamthitta District - 689 550 b�& Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.U.Balagangadharan)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary
Ministry of Communication
Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001
2. The Secretary to Government of India
Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension
North Block, New Delhi - 110 011
3. The Chief Postmaster General
Tamil Nadu Circle
Chennai - 600 002
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Chennai City North Division
Chennai - 600 008
5. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Thiruvalla Division, Thiruvalla
6. The Chief Postmaster General
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033 .... Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.C.P.Ravikumar, ACGSC)
O.A No.180/00837/2015
T.P.Mathai
Retd. Assistant Station Master
Sahdol Railway Station
Thadeetharayil House
Near YMCA
Kuriyannoor Post
Pathanamthitta District b�& Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.U.Balagangadharan)
Versus
1. The General Manager
South Eastern Railway, 11 Garden Reach
Kolkatta 700 043
2. The General Manager
South Eastern Central Railway
Bilaspur 495001
Chattisgarh
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer
Bilaspur Railway Division
Bilaspur 495 001
Chattisgarh
4. The Divisional Railway Manager
Bilaspur 495 001
Chattisgarh
5. The Secretary to Government of India
Department of Pension & Pensioners'Welfare
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension
North Block, New Delhi - 110 011
6. The Secretary
Railway Board,
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi .... Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs.K.Girija for R1-4 & 6)
O.A No.180/00157/2016
V.Gopinathan
S/o.Damodara Kurup, Auditor (Retd.)
Resident of B-18/213
KSHB Housing Scheme, Medical College
Calicut - 673 008 ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.A Viswanathan)
Versus
1. Union of India
Rep. By Secretary
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi - 110 011
2. Senior Accounts Officer (AN)
PCDA (AF) 107, Rajpur Road
Dehradum - 248 001
3. Joint CDA (AF)
Vayusena Nagar
Nagpur - 7 ... Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.T.C.Krishna, Sr.PCGC)
This Original Application having been heard on 15.12.2016 this
Tribunal on 22.12.2016 delivered the following :
ORDER
By Justice N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member The claim made by the applicants is that Rule 26(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional to the extent it seeks to forfeit past service of an employee on tendering resignation etc. So many contentions are raised by the applicants in all these cases stating that the pension is not a bounty etc. The main contention is that the forfeiture of service cannot be construed as forfeiture of pension and that the incumbents who resigned are entitled to get legitimate pension commensurate with the period of service. It is their further plea that the forfeiture of service in the context would mean that the period of service cannot be tagged or reckoned for any purpose. A decision rendered by a single bench of the Tribunal in O.A 1619/2012 (Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench) Amar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others and the judgment rendered by a Single Judge of Hon'ble Kerala High Court of Kerala in 2014(1) KHC 814 Varghese E.K v. State of Kerala and others were relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants in support of the plea that the Rule 26(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules is unconscionable and unconstitutional. The single Bench decision of the High Court in Varghese E.K v. State of Kerala and Others was revised by the Division Bench in State of Kerala and Others v. Varghese.E.K 2016(2) KLT 175.
2. All these applications are resisted by the respondents raising the very same contention that these applications are hopelessly barred by limitation. It is also contended that the applicant in O.A 180/00836/2015 resigned from service on 1.3.1971 on his own volition and as such he is not entitled to get any pensionary benefits. All these applications are seen filed after decades together. It is not disputed that they did not have the qualifying service of 20 years for getting minimum pension. It is also not disputed that the gratuity and other benefits which the respective applicants were entitled to were given and those amounts were voluntarily accepted by the respective applicants. Rule 47 of the Railway Servants (Pension) Rules also has been relied upon by the respondents to contend that the resignation entail in forfeiture of past service.
3. The only point for consideration in all these Original Applications is whether Rule 26(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules is ultra vires and unconstitutional as contended by the applicants.
4. Similar contentions were raised by the applicants in TA 12/2015, O.A 473/13 and O.A 929/14 which were disposed of by us by a common judgment.
5. After detailed discussions and consideration of all the points raised by the respective parties, it was held by this Tribunal that Rule 26(1) of the CCS(Pension) Rules is not ultra vires or unconstitutional as contended by the applicants therein. That judgment has attained finality, learned counsel for respondents submits. In any event since we have already taken a decision in the aforesaid Original Applications that Rule 26(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules is constitutionally valid, the contention to the contrary raised by the applicants in these cases cannot be sustained.
6. In view of the decisions already rendered by this Tribunal on the question of law regarding the constitutionality of CCS (Pension) Rules 26(1) as aforestated, all these applications are liable to be dismissed. Hence, these Original Applications are dismissed. No costs.
7. In view of the order in aforesaid Original Applications, M.A 180/00255/2016 in O.A 180/00157/2016 for condoning the delay has become infructuous and it is closed accordingly.
(MRS.P. GOPINATH) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER sv