Kerala High Court declined to interfere with the CAT order denying the Union of India recovery of excess pension drawn by a low-level employee, upholding the Tribunal's decision as consistent with a Supreme Court precedent.
The Original Petition (CAT) No.44 of 2010 was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932
OP (CAT).No. 44 of 2010(S) -------------------------OA.452/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER -----------------------------THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL TUBER CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE (INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH), SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. M/S.VARGHESE & JACOB SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.P.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN SMT.MANEESHA KUMAR
RESPONDENT: ---------------
MR.G.DAMODARAN NAIR, SREE NIDHI, ANANDESWARAM, CHAMPAZHANTHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 587.
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
.................................................................... O.P.(CAT) No.44 of 2010
.................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The order under challenge is the one issued by the C.A.T. holding that petitioner is not entitled to recover alleged excess pension drawn by the first respondent. It is seen that the Tribunal has decided the case following judgment of the Supreme Court in a similar case. Even though counsel for the petitioner submitted that facts are different, we are of the view that the facts in this case are similar to the case decided by the Supreme Court because first respondent is a low level employee whose pension after recomputation is stated to be Rs.947/- and the excess amount alleged to have been paid to him is Rs.25,852/-. We do not find any ground to interfere with the Tribunal's order which is
2
rendered following decision of the Supreme Court. Consequently O.P. (CAT) is dismissed.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge
K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge
pms
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the CAT order holding the petitioner not entitled to recover excess pension.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Supreme Court judgmentFollowed¶12
The Union of India Represented by the Director, Central Tuber Crops Research Institute Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Respondent
C.N. Ramachandran Nair
K. Surendra Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
