Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
K Ramadoss vs Cpwd on 31 January, 2024
Ui nRIt I OA No.3 10/00930/20 Ia 'CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA/310/00930/2016 Dated this i 4st January, Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDILLMEMBER(A) AND HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER(S) K. Ramadoss, S/o R. Kuppusamy, No.42/10, Ram Nagar, 3™ Main Road, Nanganallur, Chennai. » Applicant By Advocate M/s Balan Haridas Vs. 1. Union of India rep by its Director General of Works, Central Public Works Department, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2.The Executive Director, Chennai Electrical Division II (&), Central Public Works Department, Shastri Bhaven, Haddows Road, Chennai. 3.Regional Director, Airports Authority of India Nartional Airports Division,, Meenambakkam, Chennai. .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. K. Rajendran for R.1 & 2 Mr. M. T. Aranan for R.3 me z OA No.3 HHO0O3 0/2016 ORDER
(Pronounced by The Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) _ The applicant has filed the OA'under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
(i) to delcare that the action of the 1 and 2™ respondent in not shifting date of absorption of the applicant as 10.04.1995 in the 3" respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.
(ii) consequently direct the 1° and 2™ respondent to shift the date of absorption of the applicant in the 3" respondent as 10.04.1995 and sanction the pension with effect from the date when the same has been extended to the employees who had filed W.P. Nos.39431 to 39434 of 2005 and W.P. Nos.14769 to 14773 of 2013 and pay pension arrears and family pension to the applicant and
(iii) | pass such other orders or direction as this. Hon'ble Tribunal think fit in the circumstances of the case."
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
The applicant join.ed the 1* respondent as Khalasi on 10.04.1985 at the Chennai Airport. Thereafter, on the formation of the 3" Respondent, the services of the applicant were absorbed by the 3" respondent with effect form 01.07.1990. The applicant had put in 5 years, 2 months and 21 days of service in the 1* respondent department. In such circumstances, the applicant and the All India PSU Absorbed Retired Employee Welfare Association had been requesting the 1* respondent to fix the date of his absorption as 10.04.1995, in order to make the applicant fully eligible for availing pension. The applicant retired from the service of the 3"
Ir } OA No.3 10/00930/2016 respondent on 28.02.2014. The last of the representations made by the applicant, was on 12.03.2016. As the applicant has not been favoured with any reply, the applicant filed the present OA.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant by referring to the facts of the case contended that the action of the 1" and the 2™ respondent in not extending the benefit of the Judgment in W.P.Nos. 39431 to 39434 of 2005, dated 03.05.2005, W.P. No.4213 of 2006, dated 06.05.3009, W.P. Nos.14769 to 14773 of 2013, dated 04,10,.203, W.P. No.10501 of 2014, dated 04.07.2014, and W.P. No.19415, dated 05.02.2016, by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court is illegal, 4, He also submitted that the action of the 1* and 2™ respondent in denying the pro-rata pension and pension arrears when the applicant has completed qualifying years of service is in gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, Further, the action of the 1" respondent in denying shifting the date of absorption and denying pension is discriminatory.
Hence, he prayed for the relief to be granted.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondents 1& 2, vehemently opposed the submission of the applicant and contended that, in O.A.No.1210 of 2014, filed by one S. Banumathi, this Tribunal passed an QA No 3 LOU9R0 2016 order rejecting the claim made by her by an order dated 28.09.2016 (R-4), therefore, the present order must also be rejected.
6. The learned counsel for Respondents 1 & 2, further argued that mes against the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the Writ Petitions cited supra by the applicant, the respondents have filed appeal in SLP (CC) Nos.14031 -- 14034 of 2016 and the Hon'ble Apex Court has admitted and stayed the operation of the Hon'ble High Court order, dated 05.02.2016, by its order, dated 01.08.2016 (R-3). Therefore, he pleaded that the OA should be dismissed.
7. The leamed counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 have placed reliance on the following judgments, in support of his contentions:
1. Order, dated 15.03.2019, of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3149 of 2019 (P. Bandopadhya & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors) _ 2, Order, dated 28.1.2021, of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.233-244 of 2021 (Union of India & Ors. Vs, K Premakumari EBtc.Etc.)}
3. Order, dated 28.02.2022, of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.3008 of 2022 (Surjeet Singh Sahni Vs. State of UP and Ors.)
4. Order, dated 19.04.2023, of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.A. No.1124 to 1132 of 2016 (R. Sivalingam and others Vs. The a QA No.310/00930/26 Eo Secretary to Government, Home (Police II) Department, Fert St. Geroge, Chennai and others)
8. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, M/s. Balan Haridas and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 &2, Mr. K. Rajendran, and Mtr. M.T, Arunan, learned counsel for the third respondent at length and perused the pleadings, the materials placed on record and the judgments relied upon by respective counsels.
9. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the facts. It is seen that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has decided the issue in favour of similarly placed persons in W.P, Nos.19415, 23137, 24398 & 28598 of 2017, by an order dated 05.02.2016, For the sake of convenience, the relevant portions of the Judgment are extracted below:
"15. It is pertinent to note that in a similar circumstance, wherein, a batch of Writ Petitions was filed in W.P.Nos.14769 to 14773 of 2013 by the Union of India, Central Public Works Department, challenging the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, a Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 04.10.2013, observed as follows:
"5. The learned counsel would further submit that even though a Special Leave Petition was filed and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 16.07.2010 by rejecting the request seeking condonation of delay of 317 days in filing the said Special Leave Petition, the said order of OA Nod O09 Wh Ode the Division Bench has been implemented and similarly placed persons who have not completed 10 years of service in CPWD were granted pension and still they are receiving pension.
6. In the light of the said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 06.04.2009, which has become final, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.As filed by the private respondents and hence these Writ Petitions are disposed of in terms of the earlier order made in W.P.No.4213 of 2006, dated 06.04.2009. The petitioners are directed to comply with the direction, as directed above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
16. In all the above judgments, we find that the Court has ordered grant of benefits to the applicants/employees on the ground that the authorities concerned had given benefits to similarly placed employees. When such is the law isid down, this Court has no reason to deny similar benefits to the employees herein and treat them differently.
17. At this juncture, it is worth referring to an Apex Court judgment in the case of Som Prakash Rekhi vs. Union of India (1981 (1) SCC 449), which exclusively deals about pensionary benefits to a poor superannuated employee. Pension is the only means for a superannuated employee to support himself, his spouse and his dependants. Pension is not a gratis or bounty, but, is paid out of regard for past meritorious services. In the case on hand, it is seen that similarly placed employees as that of the employees herein have been ordered shifting of date of absorption in their service, by their employers themselves and in some cases, only by an order of this Court.
18. In view of the above, we find no reason to disagree with the view of the Division Bench of this Court, It is not that the benefits are extended to the employees t7A Wa 3G Ge herein sympathetically. Bul, on equity, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ist respondent/Tribunal. Accordingly, the above Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."
10. It is to be noted that when the said judgment was taken on appeal by the respondents in SLP (CC) Nos.14031 -- 14034 of 2016, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the same by an order, dated 24.01.2020. Hence, the issue, now, is no more res integra and is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in favour of the applicant. In view of the same, the judgments referred to by the respondents are not applicable to the case on hand.
11. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for the relief sought by hini. Resultantly, the applicant is entitled to the relief no.ii sought by him. Respondents 1 & 2 are directed to pass an appropriate order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. The OA is allowed in the above terms. No order as to Costs.