Dismissed

P.Sunil v. Union of India

Kerala HC6 Apr 2018OP (CAT)/60/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an Original Petition challenging an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal that denied pension to a former Naval employee. The court upheld the Tribunal's reliance on the CCS(Pension Rules, 1972) regarding forfeiture of service upon resignation and found no grounds for admission.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition was dismissed with no relief granted.

P.Sunil Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶7

OP (CAT).No. 60 of 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 180/814/2016 DATED 15.01.2018 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶9

PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANTS

¶10

P.SUNIL S/O.P.K. PADMINI, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT "NIRMALIAM", JAYAPRAKASH LANE, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU PO, THIRUVANATHAPURAM 695043

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.K.MADHUSOODANAN

¶12

SRI.T.G.PAUL SRI.MATHEW JACOB (KUNNATHU) SRI.SYRIAC JOSEPH

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,

¶15

MINISTRY OF DEFENSE, SOUTH BLOCK,

¶16

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 110011

¶17

2. THE ADMIRAL SUPERINTENDENT

¶18

NAVAL DOCKYARD, MUMBAI, PIN 400023

¶19

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶20

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-04-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

kkj

¶22

OP (CAT).No. 60 of 2018 (Z)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OA.NO. 180/814/2016 WITH ANNEXURES EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2

¶26

EXHIBIT P3 REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT DATED 06.11.2015 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA.NO. 180/814/2016 DATED 15.01.2018

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

// true copy //

PA TO JUDGE

K.SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.

¶32

O.P.(CAT) No.60 of 2018 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of April, 2018

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Surendra Mohan, J.

¶35

The applicant in O.A.No.180/814/2016 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (CAT for short) is before us challenging an order dated 15.01.2018, dismissing the Original Application.

¶36

The petitioner had joined the Indian Naval Service in April 1982 as a Non Designated Apprentice when he was 18 years old. He successfully completed the training course and worked at the Naval Dockyard, Visakhpatnam for ten years. He was later on promoted to the supervisory cadre as Draftsman Electrical and posted to Mumbai. While so, on 23.04.1998, the petitioner resigned from service. According to the petitioner, he had 16 years of service to his credit at the time of his resignation. Since 16 years was the qualifying service for pension, he claims pension on the basis of the service that he had put in.

¶37

-:2:-

¶38

O.P.(CAT) No.60 of 2018

¶39

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a person who had an unblemished record of service. His services have been appreciated by the Award of Merit Certificates on various occasions. Therefore, there is no justification for denying to him his pension, especially in view of the fact that he had the requisite qualifying service to his credit. The CAT has therefore erred in dismissing his application, it is contended.

¶40

Heard. This petition comes up before us for admission. We have been taken through the impugned order of the CAT, exhibit P4. The CAT has placed reliance on Rule 26 of CCS(Pension Rules, 1972), which stipulates the forfeiture of past service, upon resignation. In view of the said provision, we are not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed for. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the CAT has approached the question in the proper perspective and has considered the matter properly.

¶41

-:3:-

¶42

O.P.(CAT) No.60 of 2018

¶43

For the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to admit this Original Petition or to grant any of the reliefs sought

¶44

for. The same is accordingly dismissed.

¶45

K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶46

ANNIE JOHN JUDGE

¶47

kkj

P.Sunil v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sunil 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Kerala Vs Smitha R.S.

Preethy A.P. Vs Indu P.

State of Kerala Vs Ravindran N.

K.N.Sudha Vs District Medical Officer, Health, Palakkad

Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust Vs State of Kerala

Union of India Vs Benny.P.Jacob