Allowed

Union of India v. Sathi.K

Kerala HC5 Jun 2024OP (CAT)/308/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union of India challenged a CAT order declaring postal assistants deemed appointed from vacancy dates and covered by CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Following a coordinate bench decision in Union of India v. M.O.Antony, and rejecting reliance on a subsequent office memorandum as applicants were recruited in 2005, the High Court set aside the Tribunal order and dismissed the original application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Union of India Vs Sathi.K — 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

¶7

OP (CAT) NO. 304 OF 2016

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.2.2016 IN OA NO.20 OF
2015 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI-110011

¶10

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

¶11

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, VADAKARA DIVISION, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673101

¶12

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, KANNUR-670001.

¶13

BY ADV SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC

¶14

RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS:

¶15

1 SHEEBA B. AGED:32 YEARS, W/O PRAVEEN.K, POSTAL ASSISTANT, KARIVALLUR PO-670521, RESIDING AT 'PARVATHI', KARIVELLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶16

2 SHINOY P AGED:34 YEARS, S/O MUKUNDAN N.P, POSTAL ASSISTANT, THALASSERY HEAD POST OFFICE-670691, RESIDING AT NEELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELLAYIL, PATHAYAKKUNNU, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶17

BY ADV SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶18

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

¶19

OP (CAT) NO. 304 OF 2016

¶20

¶21

AMIT RAWAL & EASWARAN S., JJ.

¶22

OP(CAT) No.304 of 2016

¶23

Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2024

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Easwaran S.,J.

¶26

The original petition is filed by the Union of India aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 15.2.2016 allowing original application No.20/2015 and declaring that the applicants are deemed to have been appointed from the date of arising of the vacancy and that they shall be included in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

¶27

When the matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in the original petition is covered by the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Union of India v. M.O.Antony [OP(CAT) No.85/2016], wherein a similar issue was considered by the Division Bench and the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal were set aside.

¶28

OP (CAT) NO. 304 OF 2016

¶29

¶30

We have heard Sri.T.V.Vinu, learned Central

¶31

Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri.U.Balagangadharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ applicants would concede before this Court that the judgment in M.O.Antony (supra) would govern the issue, however with a slight distinction that during the pendency of the original application, the Department themselves have come up with an Office Memorandum stating that the persons, who were appointed to the vacancies which existing prior to 01.01.2004 and where notifications were issued before 01.01.2004 such selection, would be governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

¶33

We have perused the judgment of the Division Bench in M.O.Antony (supra) [OP(CAT) 85/2016] and have considered the rival submissions raised across the bar.

¶34

In answer to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants, Sri.T.V.Vinu, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners,

¶35

OP (CAT) NO. 304 OF 2016

¶36

¶37

would submit that the said office memorandum will not apply to the case of the applicants herein, since their case is not covered by the said office memorandum. He would further point out that the applicants herein were recruited in the year 2005 and therefore, the said office memorandum will not apply. We are inclined to accept the above reasoning of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore in our view the said office memorandum will not apply.

¶38

On an analysis of the points raised before us, we are of the considered view that the issue raised in this Original Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court M.O.Antony (supra) [OP(CAT) No.85/2016]. Accordingly, we allow the Original Petition and set aside Ext.P3 order dated 15.2.2016 of the Central Administrative Tribunal and dismiss O.A.No.20/2015. No order as to costs. Sd/-

¶39

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

¶40

Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE

¶41

jg

¶42

OP (CAT) NO. 304 OF 2016

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 304/2016

¶45

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶46

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN OA` `20/2015, DATED 6/1/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS`
`ANNEXURE A6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.BS-201 DATED 16.1.2014` `ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`ANNEXURE A7`	`TRUE COY OF THE LETTER NO.B1/52/GIG DATED 8.1.2014` `ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`ANNEXURE A1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/168/DLG DATED` `9.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`ANNEXURE A2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.B/57/DLG DATED` `11.2.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`ANNEXURE A3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.5/7/2003 ECR DATED` `22.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE.`
`ANNEXURE A4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF IST APPLICANT DATED` `28.12.2013 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`ANNEXURE A5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND APPLICANT DATED` `2.1.2014 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`ANNEXURE A8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.6.2013 OF THIS` `HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA NO. 20/2015` `DATED 13/2/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS`
`ANNEXURE R3(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.RECTT/4-3/2013` `DATED 3.3.2004.`
`ANNEXURE R3(B)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE` `LEADING DAILY MALAYALA MANORAMA ON 6.3.2004.`
`ANNEXURE R3(C)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE IST APPLICANT.`
`ANNEXURE R3(D)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE 2ND APPLICANT.`
`ANNEXURE R3(E)`	`TRUE EXTRACT OF RULE 14 OF CCS PENSION RULES.`
`ANNEXURE R3(F)`	`TRUE EXTRACT OF RULE 13 OF CCS PENSION RULES-1972.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO. 180/00020/2015,` `DATED 15/2/2016 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE` `TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH`

Union of India v. Sathi.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Union of India v. Sathi.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

N. Gopakumar Vs General Manager

Union of India Vs Sheeba B.