Partly allowed

Union of India v. Dibin Raj.S.v

Kerala HC17 Nov 2020OP (CAT)/204/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order. The court set aside the Tribunal's direction to exclude terminal benefits when awarding merit points for compassionate appointment, citing an apex court mandate to include family pension in such calculations.

What did the court decide?

The direction excluding terminal benefits in evaluation of award points is set aside. The order in other respects is confirmed.

Union of India Vs Dibin Raj.S.v — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶7

OP (CAT).No.204 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16-10-2018 IN OA 879/2016 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶9

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF THE POST, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶11

2 THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM-695033.

¶12

3 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, KOLLAM POSTAL DIVISION, KOLLAM-691001.

¶13

BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

¶14

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT & 4TH RESPONDENT:

¶15

1 DIBIN RAJ.S.V AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. S.VIJAYARAJAN (LATE), DIBIN HOUSE, CHANAPPARA (P.O.), KADAKKAL-691536.

¶16

2 SYAMALA VIJAYAN, AGED 58 YEARS W/O. S.VIJAYARAJAN (LATE), DIBIN HOUSE, CHANAPPARA (P.O.), KADAKKAL-691536.

¶17

R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.A.V.VIVEK R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.GODWIN JOSEPH R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.APARNA CHANDRAN

¶18

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP (CAT) No.204/2020

-2-

J U D G M E N T

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶23

Shaffique, J:

¶24

This original petition has been filed by the Union of India and its officers challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.879/2016 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The 1^st applicant is the son of late Vijayarajan who was employed in the Postal Department. The 2^nd applicant is the wife of late Vijayarajan. The respondents herein approached the Tribunal inter alia seeking for a direction to the petitioners herein to reconsider the claim of the 1^st applicant for compassionate appointment. The Tribunal after considering the application, issued the following directions.

¶25

“8. Thus, the main thrust of the judgment is the terminal benefits are also to be excluded while awarding the relative merit points for want of indigency of the applicant. This Tribunal holds that the applicant deserves to be reconsidered by re-evaluating and award appropriate points by the Circle Relaxation Committee by ignoring the terminal benefits. This Tribunal further directs that the applicant's case should be considered along with other candidates.”

¶26

OP (CAT) No.204/2020

¶27

-3-

¶28

The only contention raised by the petitioners herein is that the direction issued by the Tribunal to ignore the terminal benefits is not in accordance with the scheme for compassionate appointment. This issue had been considered by the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC 653 , wherein the Apex Court held as under;

¶29

“We find merit in this submission, for the simple reason, that it is in accord with the express terms of the Scheme of 18 January 1990, as modified by the State. The Scheme contemplates that payments which have been received on account of welfare measures provided by the State including family pension are to be taken into account. Plainly, the terms of the Scheme must be implemented.

¶30

For these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the High Court was not justified, based on the decision in Govind Prakash Verma (supra) in issuing a direction to the State to act in a manner contrary to the express terms of the Scheme which require that the family pension received by the dependants of the deceased employee be taken into account.”

¶31

We heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well. Apparently, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Tribunal had committed error in directing exclusion of the terminal benefits for the purpose of considering

¶32

OP (CAT) No.204/2020

¶33

-4-

¶34

the points for providing benefits under the compassionate appointment scheme.

¶35

In the result, we are of the view that, the part of the order which directs exclusion of the terminal benefits while evaluating the award points is to be set aside and accordingly we do so. In all other respects, the direction of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed.

¶36

The petitioners shall endeavour to place the matter in the next meeting of Circle Relaxation Committee.

¶37

The original petition is allowed as above.

¶38

(Sd/-)

¶39

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶40

(Sd/-)

¶41

GOPINATH P., JUDGE.

AMG

OP (CAT) No.204/2020

-5-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY PETITIONER ERNAKULAM	OF THE DATED BENCH.	OA NO.180/00879/2016 FILED BY THE 20.10.2016 BEFORE THE CAT,
ANNEXURE	A1 TRUE COPY DATED 19.7 RESPONDENT	OF THE .2016 I .	ORDER NO.RECT/7-65/DEPT/2009 SSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
ANNEXURE	A13 TRUE COPY 16.9.2011	OF THE ISSUED	ORDER NO.RECTT/7-65/09 DATED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE	A2 TRUE COPY ISSUED BY OPERATIVE	OF THE THE SEC BANK LI	CERTIFICATE DATED 24.10.2009 RETARY KADAKKAL SERVICE CO- MITED.
ANNEXURE	A3 TRUE COPY ISSUED BY TRAVANCORE	OF THE THE BRA , KADAK	CERTIFICATE DATED 27.10.2009 NCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF KAL.
ANNEXURE	A4 TRUE COPY 7.10.2011 AND RESEAR	OF THE ISSUED CH FOUN	TREATMENT CERTIFICATE DATED BY SRPE GOKULAM MEDICAL COLLEGE DATION.
ANNEXURE	A5 TRUE COPY 12.4.2007	OF THE ISSUED	DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
ANNEXURE	A6 TRUE COPY 21.11.2012	OF THE ISSUED	VALUATION CERTIFICATE DATED BY THAHSILDAR.
ANNEXURE	A7 TRUE COPY SUBMITTED RESPONDENT	OF THE BY THE .	PETITION DATED 23.11.2012 2ND APPLICANT TO THE 2ND
ANNEXURE	A8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEM	OF THE BER OF	FORWARDING LETTER DATED 1.12.2012 PARLIAMENT.
ANNEXURE	A9 TRUE COPY 12.3.2014	OF THE ISSUED	LETTER NO.RECTT/332/17/2014 DATED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE	A10 TRUE COPY DATED 16.4	OF THE .2013 I	LETTER NO.DO NO.RECTT/X65/09 SSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE	A11 TRUE COPY OF 2012.	OF THE	ORDER DATED 28.6.2014 IN OA 562
ANNEXURE	A12 TRUE COPY DATED 16.5 MASTER GEN	OF THE .2014FR ERAL.	FILE NOTING RELEASED BY LETTER OM THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST

¶48

OP (CAT) No.204/2020

¶49

-6-

¶50

ANNEXURE A14	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.8.2015 IN OA.570/2014 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
ANNEXURE A15	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.37-36/2004-SPB- I/C DATED 20.1.2010 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OA NO.180/00879/2016 DATED 18.5.2017.
ANNEXURE R1	TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKARA DATED 24.11.2010.
ANNEXURE R2	TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKARA DATED 6.11.2009.
ANNEXURE R3	TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.BB/47/III/55/2009 DATED 3.12.2009.
ANNEXURE R4	TRUE COPY OF SYNOPSIS OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA.180/00879/2016 DATED 16.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

Union of India v. Dibin Raj.S.v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Dibin Raj.S.v

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

Union of India Vs Arya Sree T.

S.Sajeev Vs Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board

State of Kerala Vs a.K.Abdhul Gafoor

Molly GE0RGE Vs Union of India

Dr.Geetha P., Vs the Kerala Agricultural University

Abhilash S.G. Vs Director