Dismissed

K.v.Francis v. Union of India and Others

Kerala HC25 May 2011OP (CAT)/1453/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala on a reference accepted the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of a retired employee's claim for incentive arrears. The Court held the incentive scheme had lapsed and the petitioner's bona fide belief was an untenable ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's claim for interference with the Tribunal's order was rejected; writ petition dismissed.

K.v.Francis Vs Union of India and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶6

O.P.(CAT).No.1453 of 2011 (S)

¶7

---------------------------------------------TA.108/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

¶10

K.V.FRANCIS (RETIRED)

¶11

CHIEF SECTION SUPERVISOR TRR III, CATHOLIC CENTRE BUILDING, KOCHI, PIN-682 031. (RESIDING AT KOLANGARA HOUSE, CLUB JUCNTION, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.BABU

RESPONDENTS:

UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOM, NEW DELHI.

¶16

CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BSNL, NEW DELHI.

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, KOCHI-682 016.

¶18

THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶19

ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL FOR R1-3

¶20

THIS O.P.(CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O.P.(CAT).No.1453 of 2011 (S)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

Petitioner's Exhibits:

¶24

Ext.P1: True photocopy of letter dated 30-6-1994 issued by the Office of the 1^st respondent.

¶25

Ext.P2: True photocopy of order dated 19-11-1999 issued by the office of the 1^st respondent.

¶26

Ext.P3: True photocopy of the relevant extract of Order dated 0901-2003 bearing No.BSNL 2/2/2001/BSNL (TR) of the 3^rd respondent.

¶27

Ext.P4: True photocopy of the relevant extract of decision dated 0212-2005 of the Local Joint Consultative Machinery.

¶28

Ext.P5: True photocopy of the letter dated 22-3-2006 along with the claim statement submitted by the petitioner.

¶29

Ext.P6: True photocopy of order dated 09-3-2007 of the office of the 3^rd respondent.

¶30

Ext.P7: True photocopy of the representation dated 17-12-2007 submitted by the petitioner.

¶31

Ext.P8: True photocopy of the reminder dated 11-2-2008 submitted by the petitioner.

¶32

Ext.P9: True copy of the Writ Petition No.19454/08 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dated 26-6-2008.

¶33

Ext.P10: True copy of the respondents 1 to 3 reply affidavit filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam dated 8-8-2008.

¶34

Ext.P11: True copy of the respondents 1 to 3 reply affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal dated 16-092009.

¶35

Ext.P12: True copy of the Order in T.A.108/08 of the Honourable Central Adminstrative Tribunal, Ernakulam.

¶36

// True copy //

¶37

P.A. To Judge

¶38

A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.

¶39

¶40

O.P.(CAT)No.1453 OF 2011

¶41

- - - - Dated this the 25^th day of May 2011

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Basheer, J.

¶44

This writ petition is at the instance of a retired employee of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. He impugnes Ext.P12 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench rejecting his claim for payment of the alleged arrears towards incentive that was being paid by the erstwhile Telecom Department to the employees like him for collection of arrears of old telephone bills. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to get a total sum of Rs.70,498/- for the period from April 1, 2002 till January 8, 2003 as incentive for the arrears of telephone bills collected by him while he was working as Telephone Revenue Inspector.

¶45

The claim was resisted by the respondents pointing out that the scheme for payment of incentive was in vogue only till March 31, 2002 and therefore even if the petitioner had collected any arrears after the said date in his capacity as Telephone Revenue Inspector he would not be entitled to get any incentive.

¶46

The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, found that the scheme referred to above was not extended by the department beyond March 31, 2002. But the petitioner contends that he was under the bonafide belief and expectation that he would be given incentive in terms of the scheme which was in vogue till March 31, 2002.

¶47

We are afraid the said contention is totally untenable. The Tribunal, in our view, was justified in dismissing his claim. We do not find any reason to

¶48

O.P.(CAT)No.1453 OF 2011

¶49

:: 2 ::

¶50

interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, especially, since the scheme in question was not admittedly in force for the period during which the petitioner had allegedly made some recovery.

¶51

The original petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶52

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

¶53

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

¶54

jes

K.v.Francis v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Francis v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.P.Alocious Vs Pradeepkumar

M.S.Pemmaiah Vs T.K.Mani

Daisy Abraham Vs a.K.v.Shanmugham

Aliyar S/O.Mohammed Vs Aliyar S/O.Khadar

Frijin Rodrigues Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs P.R.Soman and Others