Patna High Court
Satyendra Kumar vs The Union Of India & Anr on 23 April, 2010
Author: Kishore K. Mandal
Bench: S.K.Katriar, Kishore Kumar Mandal
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9356 OF 2007
SATYENDRA KUMAR, S/O- LATE BABULAL @ BABULAL PASWAN, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE CHORIA, P.S.- CHERKI (SHERGHATI), DISTRICT- GAYA.
--------------------- Petitioner
Versus
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CHAIRMAN EASTERN RAILWAY, RAIL
BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER, EASTERN RAILWAY, MUGHALSARAI,
UTTAR PRADESH.
---------------- Respondents
For The Petitioner : Mr. Jagdish Prasad Bhagat, Advocate
For The Respondents: Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL
Kishore K. Mandal, J. The petitioner, who is son of the deceased employee,
has filed the present writ application challenging the order dated
29.01.2003passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, (in short the Tribunal) in O.A. no. 418 of 2000 (Satyendra Kumar versus Union of India & Anr.), whereby the prayer of the original application (writ petitioner herein) to pay arrears of salary due to his father, for the period 27.8.1986 to 13.11.1986, 23.12.2986 to 29.1.1987 and 26.11.1987 to 12.5.1991, has been rejected. Paragraph 3 of the order passed by the learned Tribunal reads thus:
" After considering the details submitted in the OA and also the written statement as well as oral submissions of the respondents, it is observed that all possible details have already been made available in the reply of the respondents to the applicant, a copy of which is placed at Annexure-6 to the OA. The applicant has not brought out any new fact in the application. That being the case, we do not find any merit in the application, and, therefore, 2 dismiss it as devoid of any merit, with no order as to costs."
2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The father of the petitioner was employed in the Indian Railways. He retired from service on 31.5.1997 and thereafter remained alive till 28.10.1998. After his death, his son (present petitioner) approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. no. 506 of 1999 claiming payment of arrears of salary admissible/payable to the deceased employee i.e. his father. The said application was disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the authority by filing representation, and the authorities were directed to consider, and dispose of the same by a reasoned order. Consequently, the petitioner approached the authority by filing a representation which was considered and rejected by a reasoned order 20.12.1999 (Annexure-2). The said order was again put in issue by filing O.A. no. 418 of 2000 which was disposed of in the manner noted above.. Writ petitioner consumed four years to consider the reasons assigned in the said order, and ultimately approached this court by filing the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the authorities as contained in Annexure-2.
3. We have perused the order passed by the authorities on 20.12.1999 (Annexure-2). It appears therefrom that the deceased employee, upon superannuation ,had been paid all the post retiral dues. He was thus satisfied with the payments made to him upon superannuation. It further appears from the 3 record that after retirement, he remained alive for about one year and five months. No issue/claim was raised by him. We can, therefore, safely presume that he was satisfied with the payment of post retiral dues. It further appears from the order impugned that the authorities made available all the relevant details concerning the employee wherefrom it was found that there was no scope for adjustment of period of absence from duty for more than four years.
4. We, therefore, are not inclined to take a view different from what has been taken by the Tribunal. We fully agree with order passed by the Tribunal refusing to interfere with the order contained in Annexure-2.
5. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
( Kishore K. Mandal, J. ) S.K. Katriar, J. : I agree.
(S.K. Katriar, J.) Patna High Court 23rd April 2010 NAFR/pkj