Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Senior Superintendent Of Post ... vs Smt.M.Kumari on 4 February, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.4332 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl DATE Office
No. Note
02 04.02.2022 AVSS,J & NJS,J
I.A.No.02 of 2021
Heard Sri N.Harinath, learned Assistant
Solicitor General of India, appearing for the review
petitioners, and perused the entire material
available on record.
Review petitioners are the petitioners in
W.P.No.4332 of 2021. In W.P.No.4332 of 2021,
petitioners herein assailed the validity and the
legal sustainability of the order, dated
09.01.2020, passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.20/757/2019.
Respondent herein is the wife of one late
Sri M.Ravi Kumar, who was working as a Postal Assistant in the Postal Department. Respondent herein filed the above mentioned Original Application on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad against the petitioners herein seeking the following relief:
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records relating to Lr.No.Ac/Pen/MRK, dated 15.01.2019 issued by the first respondent and Lr.No.Ac/PEN/Misc, dated 18.01.2013, issued by the first respondent and quash and set aside the same as illegal, unjust, discriminatory and opposed to the rules on the subject besides being in violation of Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution and consequently be pleased to hold that the applicant is entitled for the retiral benefits of her husband Mr.M.Ravikumar and family pension thereon from the date of missing with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal 2 W.P.No.4332 of 2021 may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".
The Central Administrative Tribunal, by way of an order, dated 09.01.2020, allowed the said Original Application directing the petitioners herein to grant pension to the applicant/ respondent from 06.02.2000 till 05.10.2007 and other retiral benefits, including family pension as per the Rules on the subject by reckoning the date of missing of her husband as 06.10.2000.
Challenging the said order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, petitioners herein filed W.P.No.4332 of 2021 and the said Writ Petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 23.02.2021. Now, the present application is filed seeking review of the said order. Broadly, there are two contentions raised by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. They are:
1. The Central Administrative Tribunal as well as this Court went wrong in placing reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.1577 of 2016; and
2. The Tribunal and this Court did not properly appreciate the effect of OM F.No.1/17/2011-P & PW(E), dated 24/25.06.2013 of the Department of Pensioners' Welfare, Government of India.
With regard to the first contention advanced by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, it is required to be noted that a perusal of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in clear and vivid terms, shows that apart from referring to the judgment of the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal also had taken into consideration Chapter XII of the Note Book for Enquiring Officers and disciplinary authorities, 3 W.P.No.4332 of 2021 2013 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & others v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar & Others [(1998) 7 SCC 569] and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parchur, Prakasam District and, eventually, found in favour of the respondent herein.
Coming to the order under review, this Court, having considered the proceedings initiated and completed against the husband of the respondent herein and taking into account Chapter XII referred to supra, confirmed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the Original Application. Therefore, contention No.1 contra advanced by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be sustained. Coming to contention No.2, i.e., even assuming that the respondent is entitled, such entitlement needs to be restricted for the period posterior to the lodging of the complaint i.e., after expiry of six months from the complaint. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the Official Memorandum No.F.No.1/17/2011-P & PW(E), dated 24/25.06.2013, the same, as extracted in the order under review, reads as follows:
4. "In the case of a missing employee/ pensioner/family pensioner, the family can apply for the grant of family pension, amount of salary due, leave encashment due and the amount of GPF and gratuity (whatever has not already been received) to the Head of office of the organisation where the employee/pensioner had last served, six months after lodging of police report. The family pension and/or retirement gratuity may be sanctioned by the Administrative Ministry/Department after observing the following formalities:-
(i) The family must lodge a report with the concerned Police Station and obtain a report from the Police, that the employee/ pensioner/family pensioner has not been traced despite efforts made by them. The report may be a First Information Report or any other report such as a Daily Diary/General Diary Entry 4 W.P.No.4332 of 2021
(ii) An Indemnity Bond should be taken from the nominee/dependants of the employee/ pensioner/family pensioner that all payments will be adjusted against the payments due to the employee/pensioner/family pensioner in case she/he appears on the scene and makes any claim.
5. In the case of a missing employee, the family pension, at the ordinary or enhanced rate, as applicable, will accrue from the expiry of leave or the date up to which pay and allowances have been paid or the date of the police report, whichever is later. In the case of a missing pensioner/family 'pensioner, it will accrue from the date of the police report or from the date immediately succeeding the date till which pension/family pension had been paid, whichever is later.
6. The retirement gratuity will be paid to the family within three months of the date of application. In case of any delay, the interest shall be paid at the applicable rates and responsibility for delay shall be fixed. The difference between the death gratuity and retirement gratuity shall be payable after the death of the employee is conclusively established or on the expiry of the period of seven years from the date of the police report."
A reading of the above said Official Memorandum shows that it does not stipulate in the manner in which the argument is sought to be advanced in the present review application.
On the other hand, the said Official Memorandum only stipulates that application needs to be made six months after lodging of the police report. Therefore, contention No.2 advanced by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India is devoid of merits.
It is a settled and well established principle of law that any application for review is maintainable under the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC only in the cases where there is error apparent on the face of the record. In the instant case, this Court does not find any such contingency.
For the aforesaid reasons, this application is 5 W.P.No.4332 of 2021 dismissed.
I.A.No.03 of 2021In view of the dismissal of the review application, this application is closed.
________ AVSS,J _______ NJS,J Tsy