Dismissed

P.B.K. Murthy v. Ministry of Railways

Telangana HC17 Sept 2014WP/9736/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's refusal to condone a 412-day delay in filing an application regarding a 25% permanent pension cut. The court held there were no grounds to condone the delay despite the petitioner's health certificate.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed without costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

P.B.K. Murthy Vs Ministry of Railways — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.9736 OF 2003

¶4

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to declare the order, dated 23.04.2002, in M.A.No.916 of 2001 in Original Application (SR) No.4557 of 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), as arbitrary and illegal.

¶6

2. Petitioner herein filed the aforesaid Original Application to call for the records relating to the order No.E (O)-88/PU-2/22/Pt, dated 14.10.1999, of the first respondent communicated vide letter No.P/SC/227/W/105, dated 26.10.1999, rejecting the mercy petition against imposition of punishment of 25% cut in pension permanently and quash the same and restore pension and pensionary benefits.

¶7

3. M.A.No.916 of 2001 was filed to condone the delay of 412 days in filing the Original Application. As the petitioner was suffering from multi health problems, he could not file the Original Application in time. Medical certificate issued by the Railway Hospital, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, would go to show that the petitioner was suffering from Hypertension and urinary infection. Ailments, which were mentioned in the medical certificate, are not so severe so as to disable a person to approach the lawyer and file the application before the Tribunal.

¶8

4. The Tribunal exercised its discretion and refused to condone the delay. Order, dated 20.11.1996, imposing punishment of 25% cut in pension permanently was not challenged on the ground that it has not

¶9

been communicated to the petitioner. But, aggrieved by the said order, he filed mercy petition though no such petition is permissible under the Rules. The mercy petition was rejected on 14.10.1999. Therefore, there are absolutely no grounds to condone the delay. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, in the circumstances without costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶11

_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶12

_________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶13

SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 YVL

¶14

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶15

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.9736 OF 2003

¶17

17.09.2014

¶18

YVL

P.B.K. Murthy v. Ministry of Railways

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.B.K. Murthy v. Ministry of Railways

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.Appa Rao Vs The General Manager

M/s. Cura Technologies Limited Vs Andhra Bank

B.Shankar Vs Chief Personal Officer Scr Secbad and Anot

Y.Rajasekhar Reddy.Medak. Vs D.R.Ordnance Factories BOARD.KOLKOTA.AND1

Smt. Dornala Vidya Praveena, Vs The Honorable Consumer Disputes Redressal

A. Sai Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh