Dismissed

Union of India v. K.Parasurama Iyer

Kerala HC27 May 2016WA/2462/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a judgment by a Single Judge was unsustainable following a Division Bench decision on similar facts (W.A. 1418/2015). The appeal was dismissed, directing the first respondent to compute pension benefits based on IDA pay scale and grant CDR benefits.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the first respondent to compute retiral benefits based on IDA pay scale and grant CDR benefits.

Union of India Vs K.Parasurama Iyer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶6

WA.No. 2462 of 2015 () IN WP(C).26911/2011

¶7

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1,2,4 &5:

¶8

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CUNSUMER, AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION,

¶9

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.110 001.

¶10

THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE, TRIKOOT-2, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE COMPLEX, (BEHIND HOTEL HYATT REGENCY), NEW DELHI-110 066.

¶11

THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (FOOD), SOUTHERN REGION, 3, HADDOWS ROAD,, CHENNAI-600 006.

¶12

THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICE, MINISTRY OF FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, SHASTHRI BHAVAN, CHENNAI-600 006.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER R3, R6 & ADDL R7:

¶15

K.PARASURAMA IYER

¶16

S/O.LATE K.KRISHNA IYER, AGED 75 YEARS, HARISANKAR ROAD, THREKKAD, PALAKKAD-1.

¶17

THE ZONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006.

¶18

THE MANAGER

¶19

STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA 689 647.

¶20

THE MANAGER,

¶21

STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PALAKKAD, KERALA.

¶22

R3&4 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, SBT R BY SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN R BY SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN R BY SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, FCI

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

¶25

¶26

W.A No. 2462 of 2015

¶27

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2016.

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Antony Dominic,J.

¶30

The respondents in W.P.(C) No. 26911 of 2011 are the appellants. The writ petition was filed seeking to quash Exts.P7 and P8 and to require the appellants to pay pensionary benefits on the basis of the basic pay as fixed by Ext.P2 with effect from 30.04.1995 and in accordance with the provisions of the CCS Pension Rules. In the judgment under appeal, following the judgment in W.A. No. 2831 of 2000 and connected cases, the learned single Judge quashed the impugned orders and issued the direction as prayed for. It is this judgment which is challenged before us.

¶31

We heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the respective Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4.

¶32

Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel

¶33

W.A. No. 2462/2016

¶34

-2-

¶35

appearing for the appellants brought to our notice that a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1418 of 2015 had occasion to consider the matter exactly on similar facts. That writ appeal was disposed of with the following directions:

¶36

In the result, the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be modified in the following manner:

¶37

a) The direction of the learned Single Judge, in so far as it set aside Exts.P9 and P10, is set aside.

¶38

b) The retiral benefits of the petitioner shall be computed as admissible to Central Government employees in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the orders issued by the Central Government from time to time. The calculation of the retiral benefits of the petitioner shall be made on the basis of his last drawn pay in the Corporation i.e. IDA pay scale.

¶39

c) The writ petitioner shall be entitled for Central Dearness Relief and all other benefits as admissible to Central Government employees.

¶40

d) The petitioner is given an opportunity to represent against computation of pension in consequence to Exts.P9 and P10 raising objections which shall be considered and a decision be taken and communicated by the first respondent expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date, the representation is received.”

¶41

In the light of the said judgment, the judgment under appeal

¶42

cannot be sustained. Therefore the writ appeal is disposed of setting

¶43

W.A. No. 2462/2016

¶44

-3-

¶45

aside the judgment under appeal and the impugned orders and directing that the first respondent herein will be entitled to the benefit of clauses (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 48 of the judgment in W.A. No. 1418 of 2015 extracted above.

¶46

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

¶47

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶48

¶49

W.A. No. 2462/2016 -4-

Union of India v. K.Parasurama Iyer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. K.Parasurama Iyer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.M.Abubacker Vs Muhamma Masjidathul Muhammadiya Sangam

Smt. Neeta Anto Vs the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds)

Arya Devi Vs the State of Kerala

R. Sivadasan Nair Vs the Tiruvananthapuram Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.

P.N.Sreekumar Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Hotel Surya Vs the State of Kerala