Union Of India vs Mammathu on 12 June, 2024

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Union Of India vs Mammathu on 12 June, 2024

The respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal are the petitioners herein. The original application was filed by the wife of late Sri.A.K.Muhammed, who expired on 17.12.2009. Aggrieved by the nonfeasance on the part of the respondents in including her husband in the statutory pension scheme notionally and to sanction family pension benefits due to her from the date of death of her husband, the original application was filed. The proceedings before the Tribunal reveal that late Sri.A.K.Muhammed had applied for promotion as per Annexure-A1 application dated 22.7.2002 and he took part in the Departmental Examination and the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 19.8.2005 approved the selection of the employee for promotion. The case OP (CAT) NO. 302 OF 2017 3 projected was that the promotion was for the vacancy that arose prior to 1.1.2004, and therefore, the delay in processing the application for promotion should not operate as detriment to the claim of the applicant.

2. The respondents appeared before the Tribunal and objected to the claim and submitted that the appointment by promotion itself was after the new Rules had come into effect and therefore, the case of the employee cannot be dealt with under the erstwhile pension scheme. The Tribunal on a consideration found that the facts pleaded before the Tribunal was covered by the judgment of this Court in OP(CAT) No.140/2015 dated 20.8.2015 and accordingly, allowed the application and issued directions directing the petitioners herein to include the name of late Sri.A.K.Muhammed in the statutory pension scheme and thereafter directed to grant family pension to the applicant as per the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 without effecting any recovery of the family pension already sanctioned to her.

OP (CAT) NO. 302 OF 2017 4

3. We have heard Sri.T.V.Vinu, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners/respondents and Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/applicant.

4. Sri.T.V.Vinu, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the very promotion of late Sri.A.K.Muhammed was on 19.8.2005, i.e. after the date of coming into force of the new Scheme. According to him, when the Scheme was came into force with effect from 1.1.2004, any promotion effected thereafter, cannot be backdated and therefore, according to him, the point is not covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in OP(CAT) No.140/2015 dated 20.8.2015.

5. On the other hand, Sri.Sajith Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the case pleaded before the Tribunal and found in favour of his client is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in OP(CAT) No.140/2015 dated 20.8.2015.

OP (CAT) NO. 302 OF 2017 5

6. We have considered the rival submissions raised across the bar.

7. When we peruse the findings rendered by this Court in OP(CAT) No.140/2015 dated 20.8.2015, it is explicitly evident that the facts pleaded in the present original petition and the facts considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court are not similar in nature. In the present case, the Departmental Promotion Committee had met after 1.1.2004, when the new Pension Scheme came into effect, and admittedly, late Sri.A.K.Muhammed was promoted only on 19.8.2005. It may be true that the vacancy had arisen prior to the promulgation of the new Pension Scheme. However, in our considered view, that itself will not be a material for the applicant to claim that late Sri.A.K.Muhammed should have been included in the erstwhile Pension Scheme. Therefore, in our considered view, the Tribunal clearly erred in allowing the original application following the judgment of this Court in OP(CAT) No.140/2015 dated 20.8.2015.

OP (CAT) NO. 302 OF 2017 6 In the result, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The Original Petition is allowed. Ext.P3 order dated 28.7.2016 in OA No.410/2015 is set aside. The original application stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/-

EASWARAN S. JUDGE jg OP (CAT) NO. 302 OF 2017 7 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 302/2017 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22/07/2002 FOR ADMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATION FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE CADRE OF POSTMAN/MAIL GUARD FOR THE VACANCIES OF 2000 AND 2001.

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE HELD ON 19/08/2005.

ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C-21/2009 DATED 28/11/2013 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.VIG/RTI/47/2014- 15 DATED 05/03/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 23/12/2009.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.102/2010 DATED 17/06/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE.

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE OA.NO.180/00410/2015 DATED 01/06/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 27/10/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN DATED 28/07/2016 IN OA.NO.180/00410/2015 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court