The Division Bench dismissed the original petition, upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision not to grant pending pension to a retired postman who fell short of the ten-year minimum service requirement due to assignment versus appointment date disparity.
The original petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1941
OP (CAT).No. 102 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 180/00655/2016 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 30-07-2018
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001.
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, MANJERI POSTAL DIVISION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT676121.
BY SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
V.MUNDANKUTTY, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O KUNJUKUTTY,RETIRED POSTMAN, PULLIKKAL,MANJERI POSTAL DIVISION, KERALA,KRISHNA DIVAS,KIZHISSERY, KUZHIMANA.P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673641.
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(CAT)102/2019
-2-
J U D G M E N T
Chitambaresh, J.
The Tribunal has only taken a part of the GDS service of the respondent for making up the shortfall in the ten year minimum period required for grant of pension. The respondent was appointed as a Postman with effect from 10.03.2003, though was assigned a vacancy arising in 2001 and hence fell short of ten year service by one year and four months. The view of the Tribunal is in tune with OA No.1264/2001-CAT, Madras, as affirmed in WP(C) No.45465/2007 by the High Court of Madras. We also find that the SLP filed there from was dismissed on 17.10.2008 as reflected
by the impugned order of the Tribunal. We find no ground to interfere.
The Original Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH
JUDGE
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
jg
OP(CAT)102/2019
-3-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OA NO.655 OF 2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED 28.07.2016.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 13.02.2017 IN OA.NO.655 OF 2016 OF THE CAT,ERNAKULAM BENCH FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN OA 655 OF 2016 AND OA 840 OF 2016 DATED 30.07.2015 OF THE CAT,ERNAKULAM BENCH.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's decision to consider only a part of the GDS service for pension calculation due to shortfall in minimum tenure warrants interference.
UNION OF INDIA
V. MUNDANKUTTY
V. CHITAMBARESH
ASHOK MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
