Dismissed

Union of India v. P.Deivanai

Kerala HC7 Jun 2016WP(C)/15377/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order granting enhanced family pension to ex-railway employees. The Court held that the matter was already res judicata following the dismissal of a related writ petition (No. 15504 of 2007) which upheld the Tribunal's interpretation.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed with no orders as to cost, relying on the verdict in WP(C) No. 15504 of 2007.

Union of India Vs P.Deivanai — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶7

WP(C).No. 15377 of 2008 (Z)

¶8

AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 19.04.2008 IN OA.NO 540/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 19-04-2008

¶9

PETITIONER(S):

¶10

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O, CHENNAI-3.

¶11

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT 3. THE SECRETARY, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FINANCE MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. BY ADVS.SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

-------------1. P.DEIVANAI, AGED 61 YEARS W/O LATE N.PALANIMUTHU, (ASST.GUARD/SOUTHERN, RAILWAY/ERODE)NO.22, KUMARESAN ILLAM, KAMARAJAN STREET, ERODE. (APPLICANT IN O.A.540/2007). 2. R.MUTHAMMAL, AGED 61 YRS, W/O LATE K.RAMASAMY,EX.DIESEL ASSISTANT/SOUTHERN RAILWAY/ERODE) C/O SAMPATH, NO.112-A, VASANTHA NAGAR, SOLAR, ERODE.(APPLICANT IN O.A.541/2007). 3. N.SARASAMMAL, AGED 55 YRS, W/O LATE A.NANJAPPAN, EX.POINTSMAN 'A'/SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION) NO 1/21, CHINNAPULIYAMPALAYAM,VAYPPADI ANJAL,VIJAYAMANGALAM (VIA),PERUNDURAI TALUK, ERODE DIST. PIN 638056., (APPLICANT IN O.A.546/2007)

¶14

P. KAMALAM, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O LATE P. PERIASAMY, (CHIEF SIGNAL INSPECTOR/SPECIAL/SALEM/PALHAT DIVISION/ SOUTHERN RAILWAY), RESIDING AT NO. 3/168, VELLAKALPATTI, PUTHANAMPATTY P.O, MUSIRI TALUK, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DISTRICT, PIN 621007. R,R1 TO 4 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY BY ADV. SMT.D.HEERA BY ADV. SMT.R.R.REJITHA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0706-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) NO. 15377 OF 2008

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXT. P1	: TRUE COPY OF 05.11.1997 OF	ORDER R.B.E. NO. 142/1997 DATED RAILWAY BOARD
EXT. P2	: OF O.A. NO. ERNAKULAM	540/2007 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES OF CAT/
EXT. P3	: TRUE COPY OF 540/2007 ALONG	REPLY STATEMENT FILED IN O.A. NO. WITH ANNEXURES OF CAT/ERNAKULAM
EXT. P4	: TRUE COPY OF ERNAKULAM IN O AND 584/2007.	COMMON ORDER DATED 19.02.2008 OF CAT/ .A. NOS. 540/2007, 541/2007, 546/2007

¶20

/TRUE COPY/

¶21

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶22

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶23

¶24

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶28

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 19.04.2008 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 540 of 2007 and connected cases. The O.A. No. 540 of 2007 was filed with the following prayers:

¶29

“(i) Declare that the applicant is entitled to be granted enhanced family pension at the rate provided for in Annexure A1 with a minimum of Rs.2500/- per month plus relief as admissible with effect from 1.1.96;

¶30

(ii) Direct the respondents to grant the enhanced family pension as declared in Para (1) above with all consequential arrears of pension and dearness relief thereon.

¶31

(iii) Direct the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of arrears of enhanced pension at the rates and from the dates as found just and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal up to the date of full

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 15377 of 2008

¶33

: 2 :

¶34

and final settlement of the same.

¶35

(iv) Award costs of and incidental to this Application.

¶36

(v) Pass such other orders or direction as deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶37

On completion of the pleadings and after considering the rival contentions, the matter was finalised by the Tribunal by passing Ext.P4 common order dated 19.02.2008 in the O.A. No. 540 of 2007 and connected cases; the operative portion of which reads as follows:

¶38

“6. I have heard Advocate Mr. T.C. Govindswamy, for

¶39

the Applicants in all these OAas and Advocate Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil for Respondents (in OA No.540/07 & 546/07) and Mr. P. Haridas for the Respondents (in OA Nos. 541/07 and 584/07). These OAs are squarely covered by aforesaid orders of this Tribunal in OA No.105/2006 and connected cases as well as OA 159/2007 decided on 11.01.2007 and 24.10.2007 respectively. I, therefore, allow these OAs and declare that the applicants are entitled to be granted the enhanced family pension as provided in the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare) OM No.

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 15377 of 2008

¶41

: 3 :

¶42

45/22/97-P&PW(C) dated 3.2.2000. The respondents are therefore directed to revise the family pension of the applicants @ Rs.2,500/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and pay the same with upto date arrears dues on account of such revision within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. They are also entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 9% of the delayed payment of pensionary benefits with effect from 1.1.1996 as held by the Apex Court, State Bank of India Vs. K.C. Tharakan, 2005 (8) SCC 428 and in its recent judgment in S.K Dua Vs. State of Hayana and anr. 2008 (1) SCALE 284. There shall be no orders as to cost.

¶43

As a matter of fact, the said relief was granted with reference to the relief granted by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 105 of 2006 and connected cases. The present writ petition was admitted by this Court, based on the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners, that the verdict passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 105 of 2006 has already been subjected to challenge and the issue is pending consideration in W.P.(C) No.15504 of 2007.

¶44

Today, when the matter is taken up for final hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that W. P. (C) No. 15504 of 2007 and connected cases

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 15377 of 2008

¶46

: 4 :

¶47

preferred against the verdict in O.A.105 of 2006 and connected cases were finally heard and dismissed on 09.03.2012, holding that there was no error of judgment in terms of law or interpretation of the relevant O.M. at the hands of the Tribunal. Interference was declined with regard to the other grounds as well, as discernible from paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment.

¶48

In the said circumstance, we find that nothing further survives to be considered in the present writ petition. Accordingly, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed in terms of the verdict in W.P.(C) No.15504 of 2007.

¶49

sd/-

¶50

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶51

sd/-

¶52

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶53

kmd

¶54

/True copy/

¶55

P.A. To Judge

Union of India v. P.Deivanai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. P.Deivanai

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

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash K Vs State of Kerala

Indhu v. Menon Vs Subash V.S.

Union of India Vs R.K.Gangadharan

Khadeeja Vs Rushidi

Dr.Shahinamole.S Vs State of Kerala