Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, K. BABU, JJ.
C.P. Reghukumar S/o C.V. Prabhakaran – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Rep. by the Secretary – Respondent
O.P. (CAT) No. 232 of 2019
Decided On : 10-03-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226 and 227 – CCS (Pension) Rules – Rule 13 – Pension – Notional service – Prayers in afore-captioned Original Petition (CAT) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by petitioner herein (Original Applicant) are as To set aside the Exhibit P7 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam bench in O.A. and allow the O.A. as prayed for. – To direct the Respondents to grant notional service to the Petitioner counting his provisional service with effect from 02.07.2001 or at least with effect from 01.01.2002 for the purpose of qualifying service for pension and to grant him all consequential benefits including pension under CCS Pension Rules. – To issue such other Order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. – Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Court may deem fit to grant. – Grant the cost of this Original Petition (CAT) – Prayers in Ext.P1 original application, O.A. filed by the petitioner herein are as To quash Annexure A1. – To direct the Respondents to grant notional service to the Applicant counting his provisional service with effect from 04.09.2001 or at least with effect from 01.01.2002 for the purpose of qualifying service for pension and to grant him all consequential benefits including pension under CCS Pension Rules. – Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Court may deem fit to grant. – Grant the cost of this Original Application
Finding of the court :
Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has gone wrong entirely in stating the said grounds of the rejection. – Said reasonings are to say the least, specious. – Tribunal goes on a tangential premise as if the claim of the petitioner herein is for regularisation. – Petitioner has not sought for regularisation in the year 2002. – On the other hand, the petitioner has no dispute that the sole vacancy of the year 2002 has been assigned to his senior, through his legal representative and that the only vacancy available for regularisation of the petitioner in terms of Annexure R3 was the one which occurred in the year 2006 and the petitioner has been regularised as per Annexure R3 read with Ext.P1(A3) with effect from 01.02.2006. – What is involved in this case is that the Tribunal has overlooked, by not adverting to the crucial aspect that what is claimed by the petitioner is not regularisation in the year 2002 but that his continuous ad-hoc/officiating service in the Group D post for the period from 30.06.2001 up to 31.01.2006 along with his regular service for the period from 01.02.2006 up to his date of retirement on 31.03.2015. – Claim is made by the petitioner on the basis of the statutory mandate contained in Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules – It is ordered that the impugned Annexure A1 rejection order issued by the third respondent Superintendent of Post Offices is illegal and ultra-vires and cannot have any legs to stand in the eye of law. – In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure A1 rejection order rendered by the 3rd respondent will stand set aside and quashed. – Revised orders in that regard shall be duly passed by the competent authority of the respondents without any further delay, at any rate within two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. – Petitioner’s counsel may forward copy of this judgment to the competent authority of the respondents for necessary action and immediate compliance. –
Result : Original Petition Disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
1. The prayers in the afore-captioned Original Petition (CAT) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner herein (Original Applicant) are as follows (See Page No. 11 of the paper book of this O.P.):
(ii) To direct the Respondents to grant notional service to the Petitioner counting his provisional service with effect from 02.07.2001 or at least with effect from 01.01.2002 for the purpose of qualifying service for pension and to grant him all consequential benefits including pension under CCS Pension Rules.
(iii) To issue such other Order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Court may deem fit to grant.
(v) Grant the cost of this Original Petition (CAT).”
2. Heard Sri. V. Sajith Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the OP/sole applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal and Sri. P. Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents in the O.P./respondents in the O.A.
3. The prayers in Ext.P1 original application, O.A. No. 491 of 2015 filed by the petitioner herein are as follows (See page Nos.19 and 20 of the paper book of this O.P.):
(ii) To direct the Respondents to grant notional service to the Applicant counting his provisional service with effect from 04.09.2001 or at least with effect from 01.01.2002 for the purpose of qualifying service for pension and to grant him all consequential benefits including pension under CCS Pension Rules.
(iii) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Court may deem fit to grant.
(iv) Grant the cost of this Original Application.”
4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P7 final order dated 20.06.2019 in the instant O.A. No. 491 of 2015, whereby the main plea of the petitioner herein/applicant for reckoning his officiating/ad hoc service in Group D post, for the purpose of reckoning it as pensionable service in terms of Rule 13 of CCS (Pension Rules), by following the ratio decidendi laid down by the Tribunal in Ext.P6 final order dated 09.04.2018 rendered by the CAT, Ernakulam Bench, in O.A. No. 79 of 2014 in the case K. Haridasan vs. Union of India and Others on the ground that the facts in that case are distinguishable from the instant case, etc. It is this impugned final order at Ext.P7 rendered by the Tribunal in the instant original application that is under challenge in the original petition.
5. The facts are not seriously under dispute. The petitioner had continuous officiating/ad- hoc service in a Group D post with effect from 02.07.2001 up to his regularisation in the Group D post in the year 2006 along with his regular service in the Group D post, for reckoning the former ad-hoc service for the limited purpose of pensionable service in terms of Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules. The petitioner had commenced officiating/ad-hoc service in the Group D service in the Postal Department as per Ext.P8 order dated 30.06.2001 issued by the competent Postal Authority concerned. The petitioner had continuous officiating/ad-hoc service in the said Group D post. Later, he was regularised in the post in the Group D service in the year 2006. In pursuance of Annexure R1 minutes of the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee rendered on 17.07.2010, it is ordered in internal Page No. 2 of Annexure R1 (see page No. 38 of the paper book of this O.P.) that the petitioner herein, Sri. C.P. Reghukumar has been shown as S. No. 2 therein in the unreserved category and he has been given notional promotion/notional regularisation with effect from 01.02.2006 and he has been adjusted as against an unreserved vacancy in the Group D
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
