Dismissed

Union of India, v. The Registrar

Madras HC12 Sept 2023WP/22720/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order granting pension rights was dismissed. Relying on a Supreme Court decision dismissing identical petitions, the court found no merit in interfering with the Tribunal's decision regarding service calculation for pension benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned order of the Tribunal stands; interim order vacated; W.M.P.No.19412 dismissed; no order as to costs.

Union of India, Vs The Registrar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.22720 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.09.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶8

W.P.No.22720 of 2016

¶9

Union of India

¶10

rep.by its Director General of Civil Aviation

¶11

Civil Aviation Department Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan Opp.to Safdarjung Airport New Delhi 110 003

¶12

Deputy Director of Administration O/o Director General of Civil Aviation Opp.to Safdarjung Airport New Delhi 110 003

¶13

.. Petitioners

¶14

¶15

The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai

¶16

K.Usha Devi

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.22720 of 2016

¶20

Airports Authority of India rep.by its Airports Director Southern Region, Chennai Airport Meenambakkam, Chennai .. Respondents

¶21

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the file of the 1^st respondent made in O.A.No.310/00582/2014 dated 19.06.2015 and quash the same.

¶22

For Petitioners :: Mr.P.G.Santhoshkumar Senior Panel Counsel For Respondents :: R1-Tribunal No appearance for R2 Mr.R.Parthiban for R3

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.)

¶25

This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India challenging the

¶26

order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.582 of 2014 dated 19.06.2015.

¶27

The petitioners raised a plea that the second respondent herein has

¶28

not completed ten years of service and therefore she is not entitled for the

¶29

Page 2 of 6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.22720 of 2016

¶32

pensionary benefits as per the relevant Rules prevalent at that time. However, it is the claim of the second respondent that the period of service rendered in the Central Government Department as Junior Clerk before her absorption in the Airports Authority of India, has to be taken into consideration and if the said service period is calculated, she has completed ten years of service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The Tribunal accepting the claim of the second respondent allowed the O.A., against which the present writ petition has been filed.

¶33

In similar circumstances, Writ Petition Nos.19415, 23137, 24398 & 28598 of 2015 filed by the Union of India against identical orders passed by the Tribunal in favour of one Savithri and other similarly placed employees, came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2016 and challenging the aforesaid order, the Union of India preferred Civil Appeal Nos.7267-7270 of 2016 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same were dismissed on 24.01.2020. A copy of the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been placed before this Court.

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.22720 of 2016

¶37

According to the contesting respondent, the issue has reached finality and therefore the present writ petition has to be dismissed, as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savithri's case is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners did not controvert the said contention.

¶38

In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.7267-7270 of 2016 dated 24.01.2020 as well as the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.19415 of 2015 etc., dated 05.02.2016 in an identical matter, this writ petition stands dismissed finding no merits whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, interim order stands vacated and the W.M.P.No.19412 of 2016 is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

(D.K.K.,J.) (P.B.B,J.) Index : yes/no 12.09.2023 Neutral citation : yes/no

¶40

¶41

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No.22720 of 2016

¶44

¶45

The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench Chennai 600 104

¶46

The Director General of Civil Aviation Civil Aviation Department Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan Opp.to Safdarjung Airport New Delhi 110 003

¶47

The Deputy Director of Administration O/o Director General of Civil Aviation Opp.to Safdarjung Airport New Delhi 110 003

¶48

The Director Airports Authority of India Southern Region, Chennai Airport Meenambakkam, Chennai

¶49

Page 5 of 6

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.No.22720 of 2016

D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.

AND P.B.BALAJI,J.

W.P.No.22720 of 2016

12.09.2023

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Union of India, v. The Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India, v. The Registrar

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

M.Arumugam Vs A.K. Agarwal

N.Penchaliah Vs The Registrar

C.B.Madana Manoharan S/o. C. K. Balakrishna Reddy Vs The Registrar

M/S.Southern Gold Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chief Manager

Turbo Engineers (Cbe), Vs Mettur Thermal Power Station-

The Director General Vs M.Rithika