Kerala High Court
K.Velayidhan vs The Union Of India on 27 July, 2009
Bench: K.Balakrishnan Nair, C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20296 of 2005(S)
1. K.VELAYIDHAN, S/O.KESAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.AJAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :27/07/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.20296 of 2005
------------------------------
Dated this, the 27th day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The writ petitioner was the applicant in O.A. No.1032/2002. The said Original Application was filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P16 order of the Union Government communicated to him through the Assistant Director (Staff) in the office of the Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle. The petitioner joined service under the respondents on 26.10.1966 as Chowkidar. He was appointed as a Class IV employee on 13.2.1970 and promoted as Daftry on 26.8.1981. The Government of India introduced T.B.O.P. and B.C.R. Schemes for the employees under the P & T Department. Ext.P6 - TBOP Scheme was introduced with effect from 17.12.1983 and Ext.P7 BCR Scheme was introduced with effect from 11.12.1991. They were given retrospective effect from 30.11.1983 and 1.10.1991 respectively. The above schemes were not applicable to Daftries. But, by Ext.P8 dated 12.5.1993 they were extended to W.P.(C) No.20296/05
- 2 -
the Daftries also with effect from 1.5.1993. The petitioner opted to remain outside the Scheme. Later, it was found that Daftries who were juniors to the petitioner were getting better emoluments than him. Since the option once exercised was final, his representation for fresh option was declined. After several rounds of litigation, the Central Administrative Tribunal finally directed the Central Government to reconsider the matter. The Central Government by Ext.P16 allowed the claim of the applicant as a special case, taking note of the fact that he has already retired from service. He was given the benefit from 1.5.1993, but the petitioner wants the benefit with retrospective effect from 30.11.1983. Since the said claim was not accepted by the respondents, he moved the Tribunal by filing the present Original Application, O.A. No.1032/2003, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1.
2. We notice that the applicant suffered Exts.P6 and P7 orders, which were not applicable to Daftries, without demur. When they were extended to Daftries by Ext.P7 with effect from 1.5.1993, he opted out. He started filing representations only in W.P.(C) No.20296/05
- 3 -
1999 claiming benefits under those orders from 1.5.1993. He has been granted the benefit as a concession with effect from the date his colleagues got the said benefit, that is from 1.5.1993. Now, he wants to get the benefit with retrospective effect. According to him, Ext.P6 should have been extended to Daftries in 1983 itself. Even if it be so, it was a grievance which the petitioner suffered mutely for several years. Therefore, he cannot now be permitted to demur against Ext.P6. So, the claim of the writ petitioner is plainly untenable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge.
Sd/-
C.T. Ravikumar, Judge.
DK.
(True copy) P.S. TO JUDGE.