Dismissed

N. Gopakumar v. General Manager

Kerala HC5 Jun 2024OP (CAT)/16/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Loco Pilot challenged the CAT's dismissal of his claim for unpaid Breach of Rest Allowance from 2013 to 2017. The High Court held the claim was barred by delay and laches and that the allowance appeared in monthly salary slips, so no ground under Article 227 was made out. Petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

N. Gopakumar Vs General Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
OP (CAT) NO. 16 OF 2022

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2019 IN OA NO.791
OF 2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM
BENCH

¶8

PETITIONER/APPLICANT:

¶9

N. GOPAKUMAR, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA
PILLAI,
(RETIRED LP/MAIL/VM), RESIDING AT KUZHIVILA
PUTHEN VEEDU, NADUVILAKARA, PULLICHIRA P.O.,
KOLLAM-, PIN - 694304
BY ADVS.
VARGHESE JOHN
K.S.AJAYAGHOSH
S.RAHUMUDEEN(K/397/2013)

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI, PIN - 600003

¶12

2 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DIVISION, TIRUCHIRAPALLI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 620001

¶13

3 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DIVISION, TIRUCHIRAPALLI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 620001

¶14

4 THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DIVISION, TIRUCHIRAPALLI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 620001

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI T C KRISHNA SCGC

¶17

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶18

FOLLOWING:

¶19

OP (CAT) NO. 16 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

AMIT RAWAL & EASWARAN S., JJ.

¶22

OP(CAT) No.16 of 2022

¶23

Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2024

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Easwaran S.,J.

¶26

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the original application preferred by the petitioner, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, the present original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed.

¶27

The applicant had voluntarily retired from the post of Loco Pilot/Mail while working at Tiruchirappalli Division of the Southern Railway on 31.10.2017. According to him, he was entitled to Breach of Rest Allowance (B.R.A.) and during the last year of his service, he was not paid the said allowance which he could not notice. Hence, he filed a representation to the Department, which was rejected and aggrieved by the said rejection, the original application was filed for a declaration that he is entitled to be paid the Breach of Rest Allowance (B.R.A.)

¶28

from January, 2013 till his retirement on 31.10.2017.

¶29

OP (CAT) NO. 16 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

The respondents appeared and filed reply statement contending, among others, that the original application is clearly barred by limitation. It was also submitted that there was no denial of any claim of the petitioner/applicant and that his claim is not sustainable after the retirement.

¶32

The Central Administrative Tribunal based on the pleadings and materials on record concluded that the petitioner voluntarily retired on 31.10.2017 and after several years, the claim of Breach of Rest Allowance (B.R.A.) was raised. Therefore, according to the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Breach of Rest Allowance (B.R.A.) was included and drawn in the monthly wage bills and that the applicant could not have unaware of the omission and accordingly, dismissed the original application.

¶33

We have heard Sri.Martin G.Thottan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.Prenjith Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, and have considered the rival submissions raised across the bar.

¶34

OP (CAT) NO. 16 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner/applicant was entitled for the allowance and non-granting of the said allowance amounts to denial of legitimate benefit and therefore, the applicant was right in approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal ought not have rejected the application on the ground of latches and the applicant had given sufficient explanation in the original application, when it was preferred in the year 2018.

¶37

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would urge before this Court that the claim raised in the original application is per se not maintainable and that there was a clear latches on the part of the applicant in claiming the said benefit. He reiterated the contentions raised in the reply statement and prayed for dismissal of the original petition.

¶38

On a scrutiny of the findings recorded by the Central Administrative Tribunal, we are of the view that the Central Administrative Tribunal was perfectly justified in dismissing the

¶39

OP (CAT) NO. 16 OF 2022

¶40

¶41

original application for reasons more than one. It must be noted that applicant had voluntarily retired in the year 2017 and thereafter he could not have raised any further claim on account of the same having arisen during the tenure as Loco Pilot. Further the said claim was clearly hit by delay and latches. Pertinently, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, the Breach of Rest Allowance (B.R.A.) is included in the monthly salary slip of the employees and therefore, it is impossible to accept the contention of the applicant that he failed to detect the same at the appropriate time. We, therefore find there is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal warranting exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the original petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/-

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

¶44

Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE

¶45

jg

¶46

OP (CAT) NO. 16 OF 2022

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 16/2022

¶49

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶50

`Annexure-A4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.T/M/RR/2018 DATED` `31.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT,` `FORWARDED UNDER 3RD RESPONDENT'S LETTER` `NO.T/P.483/IV/MECH.BILLS DATED 04.06.2018`
`Annexure-A1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF CHAPTER IX` `OF INDIA RAILWAY ESTABLISHMENT MANUEL, VOL.I`
`Annexure-A2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.04.2018 TO THE` `3RD RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.`
`Annexure-A3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.T/P.483/ TV/` `MECH.BILLS DATED 12.04.2018`
`Annexure-A5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL DATED` `14.06.2018 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT`
`Annexure-A6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANT'S CREW SIGN ON` `DETAILS FOR THE PERIOD 01.01.2014 TO 31.01.2014`
`Annexure-R1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE T/P/483/IV/MECHL BILLS`
`Annexure-R2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA FOR SUBMISSION OF` `BRACH OF REST ALLOWANCE EVERY MONTH`
`Annexure-R3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LINK ROSTER FOR THE YEAR 2013` `- 2015`
`Annexure-R4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SRI. V. AYANAR,` `OS/CRC/O/VM`
`Annexure-R5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE` `COMMITTEE ON RUNNING ALLOWANCE`
`Annexure-R6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DPO/TPJ LETTER ABOUT NON` `PAYMENT OF BREACH OF REST ALLOWANCE.`
`Annexure-R7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RECORD OF RETENTION SCHEDULE.`
`Annexure-R8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT BREACH` `OF REST ALLOWANCE.`
`Annexure-A7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.4/OP/3/RTA DATED` `11.07.2018,`
`Annexure-A8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE` `APPLICANT FOR THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY, 2013 TO` `JULY 2016 ON THE BASIS OF THE ROUGH JOURNEL.`
`Exhibit-P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION`
	`OA/180/0791/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS` `BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH`
`Exhibit-P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN`
	`OA/180/00791/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS` `BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,`

¶51

OP (CAT) NO. 16 OF 2022

¶52

¶53

ERNAKULAM BENCH.
Exhibit-P3TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS IN OA/180/00791/2018
Exhibit-P4TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT IN
OA 791 OF 2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE
THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
Exhibit-P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2019 IN
OA/180/00791/2018

N. Gopakumar v. General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

N. Gopakumar v. General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Karunakaran Vs Union of India

The Kerala State Co-Operative Housing Federation Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Tomas Vs Union of India

The Cheruvathur Farmers Services Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs the State of Kerala

Union of India Vs Sheeba B.

Union of India Vs Sathi.K