Disposed

P.K.Gopinathan Nair v. Union of India

Kerala HC22 Mar 2017WP(C)/23465/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that the 6th Central Pay Commission's MACP Scheme was modified by the government in 2009 to start operation on 1.9.2008. No discrimination was found against employees who retired between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008. The petitioners were directed to make a representation for unpaid benefits to be calculated and disbursed.

What did the court decide?

Directs 3rd respondent to consider petitioners' representation regarding unpaid benefits within one month and disburse within two months thereafter if amounts remain unpaid.

P.K.Gopinathan Nair Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/1ST CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 23465 of 2013 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. P.K. GOPINATHAN NAIR,

¶8

AGED 65, S/O.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, KAROTTUMUKALEL HOUSE, PUNNATHURA WEST P.O., ETTUMANNUR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 631.

¶9

¶10

T.K. BABY, AGED 64, S/O.MATHAI KURUVILA, THAKADIYEL, THOTTAKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 534.

¶11

¶12

K.P. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,

¶13

AGE 66, S/O.M.R. PARAMESWARA KURUP, CHANDRATHIL HOUSE, PERINGARA P.O., THIRUVALLA, PIN-689 108.

¶14

¶15

N.N. SOMAN NAIR,

¶16

AGED 65, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, ARUN NIVAS, ARUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶17

T.O. GEEVARGHESE,

¶18

¶19

AGED 65, S/O.IDIKULA, THADATHIL HOUSE, AYARANIKUDI P.O., PANDALAM.

¶20

P.M. SIVANANDAN,

¶21

¶22

AGED 65, S/O.P. MADHAVAN, SUNIL BHAVAN, VENMONI P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 509.

¶23

¶24

P.O. OOMMAN,

¶25

AGED 66, GEORGY BHAVANAM, CHANGAMALA, VENMONI P.O., ALAPPUZHA-689 509.

¶26

8. R. VASUDEVAN PILLAI, AGED 66, S/O.K.RAMAN PILLAI, PANDARAKALA PUTHEN VEEDU, PALLICKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 566.

¶27

WP(C).No. 23465 of 2013 (G)

¶28

9. T.K. KURIAKOSE, AGED 66, S/O.KURUVILA VARGHESE, THUNDIYIL HOUSE, PEROOR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 637.

¶29

10. K.S. CHERIAN, AGED 65, S/O.CHERIAN SAMUEL, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOZHIMALA P.O., VALLAMKULAM, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶30

11. P.C. VARGHESE, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.T.C. THOMAS, THEKKEPARATTUMALAYIL HOUSE, KIDANGANNUR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶31

BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF.

¶32

RESPONDENT(S):

¶33

1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶34

2. THE DIRECTOR, PAY COMMISSION, RAILWAY BOARD, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶35

3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶36

4. CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER OF RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI-600 003.

¶37

BY SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM, SC. SRI.C.S.DIAS, SC.

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

rs.

¶40

WP(C).No. 23465 of 2013 (G)

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶43

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE VI CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS WITH ANNEXURE DATED 10/06/2009.

¶44

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 12/12/2009.

¶45

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE RAILWAY WITH COPIES TO RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 DATED 11/08/2012.

¶46

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/12/2012 IN WP(C).NO.25499/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶47

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/07/2013 PASSED BY THE MEMBER STAFF OF RAILWAY BOARD, MINISTRY OF RAILWAY.

¶48

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶53

W.P(C).No. 23465 of 2013

¶54

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd March, 2017

¶55

JUDGMENT

¶56

The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:

¶57

“i. call for the records leading upto Exhibit P5 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶58

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that cut off date fixed as per the scheme in Exhibit P1 to grant three financial upgradations is illegal and that the petitioners are eligible and entitled to get three grades on completion of 30 years of service as recommended by the VI Central Pay Commission.

¶59

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to sanction and disburse the monetary benefits as per Exhibit P1 to the petitioners without further delay.”

¶60

The petitioners, who had retired from service after

¶61

more than 30 years of service between 31.3.2006 and 30.4.2008, claim the benefit of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme providing for financial upgradations at intervals of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service. It is submitted that the 6^th Central Pay Commission recommendations had been made applicable to the Central Government employees with effect from 1.1.2006.

¶62

¶63

WP(C).23465/13

¶64

It is, therefore, contended that the benefit of the MACP Scheme, which was adopted by the respondents by Exhibit P1 order dated 10.6.2009 also ought to have been made applicable with effect from 1.1.2006. However, Exhibit P1 provides that the MACP Scheme would be operational with effect from 1.9.2008 and financial upgradations as per the provisions of the earlier MACP scheme of October, 1999 would be operational till 31.8.2008. The petitioners contend that since the recommendations of the 6^th Central Pay Commission had been made effective from 1.1.2006, fixing of the cut off date of 1.9.2008 for the operation of MACP Scheme was illegal and arbitrary. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioners, who retired from service between 31.3.2006 and 30.4.2008 are also entitled to the benefit of MACP Scheme.

¶65

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, contending that the 6^th Central Pay Commission had recommended only Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme with two financial upgradations. The said Scheme was modified by the Government providing for three financial upgradations and the order was issued on 19.5.2009 making the benefit of MACP Scheme operative from 1.9.2008. It is

¶66

¶67

WP(C).23465/13

¶68

further submitted that employees, who were in service on or before 1.9.2008 were alone eligible for the benefit of the MACP Scheme. The petitioners, who retired from service prior to that date, were not entitled to the said benefit, it is contended. It is further stated that the issue of implementation of the Scheme with effect from 1.1.2006 had been discussed in the joint committee of the MACP under the DOP & T on the demand of staff representative and it had been observed that the earlier ACP Scheme on recommendation of the 5^th Central Pay Commission was also implemented from 1999 and not from 1.1.1996, which was the date of implementation of the 5^th Central Pay Commission. It was further found that the changing of the date of MACP from 1.9.2008 to 1.1.2006 could place several employees at a disadvantage entailing recovery of huge amounts It is further contended that since payment of financial benefits are involved, the date of implementation of the Scheme is a matter of policy of the Government and is not open to interfere by this Court, in the absence of any arbitrary exercise of power.

¶69

I have considered the contentions advanced. Though it is the specific contention of the petitioners that the

¶70

¶71

WP(C).23465/13

¶72

recommendations of the 6^th Central Pay Commission was made effective from 1.1.2006 and that the implementation of the MACP Scheme from a later date amounted to discrimination, I am unable to find any such discrimination in the instant case. It is evident that the MACP Scheme had been modified and accepted by the Government only in the year 2009. The said Scheme was made operational with effect from 1.9.2008 uniformly to all employees covered by the recommendations of the 6^th Central Pay Commission. In the above view of the matter, it is apparent that there are no Central Government employees who have been given the benefit of the MACP with effect from 1.1.2006. In the above view of the matter, I do not find any material illegality in Exhibit P5 order of the respondents.

¶73

Learned counsel for the petitioners would then submit that the benefit of the full pension as would be applicable to the employees who retired from service after 1.1.2006 on implementation of the recommendation of the 6^th Pay Commission has not been granted to the petitioners. Since the petitioners retired from service a decade back, I am of the opinion that though there is no specific prayer raised in this

¶74

¶75

WP(C).23465/13

¶76

writ petition, this matter should be considered by the respondents without delay. In the above view of the matter, it is ordered that in case the petitioners make a representation in this regard before the 3^rd respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the 3^rd respondent shall take up, consider and pass orders on such representation after hearing a representative of the petitioners within two months thereafter. If any amounts remains unpaid to the petitioners on account of the implementation of the recommendations of the 6^th Central Pay Commission as accepted by the Government, such benefits shall be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner without any further delay.

¶77

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶78

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶79

vgs24/3

P.K.Gopinathan Nair v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Gopinathan Nair v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Silpa Projects and Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Limited Vs Ms/ Samson and Sons Builders and Developers (P) Limited

Dr.Sunil Kumar.P. Vs St.Xaier'S College

Silpa Projects and Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Limited Vs M/S.Samson and Sons Builders and Developers (P) Limited

Ravi Manohar Vs Manarcad Grama Panchayath and Others

Mohammed Iqbal K.M. Vs State of Kerala

S.Suja Vs the State of Kerala and Others