Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14218

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, J, Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, ACJ
M.Simhachalam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA Nos 1535/2024 | OA Nos 1541/2024 | OA Nos 1692/2024 | OA Nos 1693/2024 | OA Nos 1694/2024 | OA Nos 1695/2024 | OA Nos 1696/2024 | OA Nos 1697/2024 | OA Nos 1698/2024 | OA Nos 1699/2024 | OA Nos 1700/2024 | OA Nos 1701/2024 | OA Nos 1702/2024 | OA Nos 1703/2024 | OA Nos 1704/2024 | OA Nos 1705/2024 | OA Nos 1706/2024 | OA Nos 1707/2024 | OA Nos 1708/2024 | OA Nos 1709/2024 | OA Nos 1710/2024 | OA Nos 1711/2024 | OA Nos 1712/2024 | OA Nos 1713/2024 | OA Nos 1714/2024 | OA Nos 1726/2024 | OA Nos 1727/2024 | OA Nos 1728/2024 | OA Nos 1729/2024 | OA Nos 1730/2024 | OA Nos 1731/2024 | OA Nos 1739/2024 | OA Nos 1740/2024 | OA Nos 1741/2024 | OA Nos 1742/2024 | OA Nos 1743/2024 | OA Nos 1744/2024 | OA Nos 1745/2024 | OA Nos 1746/2024 | OA Nos 1747/2024 | OA Nos 1748/2024 | OA Nos 1749/2024 | OA Nos 1750/2024 | OA Nos 1751/2024 | OA Nos 1752/2024 | OA Nos 1753/2024 | OA Nos 1754/2024 | OA Nos 1755/2024 | OA Nos 1756/2024 | OA Nos 1757/2024 | OA Nos 1758/2024 | OA Nos 1759/2024 | OA Nos 1760/2024 | OA Nos 1761/2024 | OA Nos 1762/2024 | OA Nos 1763/2024 | OA Nos 1764/2024 | OA Nos 1765/2024 | OA Nos 1766/2024 | OA Nos 1767/2024 | OA Nos 1768/2024 | OA Nos 1769/2024 | OA Nos 1770/2024 | OA Nos 1771/2024 | OA Nos 1772/2024 | OA Nos 1773/2024 | OA Nos 1774/2024 | OA Nos 1775/2024 | OA Nos 1776/2024 | OA Nos 1777/2024 | OA Nos 1778/2024 | OA Nos 1781/2024 | OA Nos 1789/2024 | OA Nos 1790/2024 | OA Nos 1791/2024 | OA Nos 2089/2024 | OA Nos 2133/2024 | OA Nos 2134/2024 | OA Nos 2136/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B.Gurudas, Dr.S.Goverdhan Rao, Mr.Venkata Swamy, Ms.N.Naga Prasanthi, Mr.D.Laxminarayana Rao, Mr.Anita Swain, Mrs.B.Gayatri Varma, Mr.P.Narayana, Mrs.K.Rajitha, Mrs.K.Bharati, Mr.G.Raghunath
For the Respondents: Mrs.B.Gayatri Varma, Mrs.Rachna Kumari, Mrs.N.Nagaraja Kumari, Mr.V.Venu Madhava Swamy

The Tribunal emphasizes the necessity of adhering to Supreme Court directions for pension-related claims, enabling applicants' relief contingent upon upcoming court resolutions.

Headnote:The applicants, seeking notional increment for pension benefits, were considered against Supreme Court directions regarding their claims. The Tribunal directed to assess these requests post-Supreme Court resolutions. This ruling follows similar past orders ensuring the claimants' interests.

Table of Content
1. the applicants seek a notional increment for pension benefits. (Para 2 , 3)
2. the tribunal's decision aligns with supreme court directives. (Para 4 , 5)
3. the o.as are disposed of, following previous tribunal orders. (Para 6 , 7)

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By these Original Applications, applicants are praying for similar relief, viz., seeking a direction to the Respondents to grant one notional increment from 1^st July / 1^st January, as the case may be, for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits with all other consequential benefits.

3. Since the issue involved in all these OAs is common, by the consent of the both the sides, matters have been taken up for consideration at the admission stage.

4. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, after the Supreme Court’s direction, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, vide its OM No.19/116/2024-Pers.Pol.(Pay)(Pt), dated 14.10.2024, have also taken a decision following the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide M.A. Dy. No.2400/2024 in SLP (C) No.4722/2021 (Union of India & Ors Vs. M. Siddaraj), dated 06.09.2024. It is stated that, after the final verdict in the said matters, the same will be adopted by way of policy decision and the benefit will be extended accordingly. Therefore, the Railways have requested this Tribunal to defer the hearing in new cases till a final decision is pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

5. In the earlier O.As, this Tribunal passed the following order:

“…..Therefore, we are of the considered view that if the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicants for grant of one notional increment for the purpose of pensionary benefits, and not for any other purpose subject to verification that he/she had completed one full year of service, if they fulfil the parameters) of the final orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court as & when passed in above MA(s)/IA(s) in SLP, which are subjudice, then the purpose of filing of these OAs and the relief prayed therein will be fulfilled. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicants for grant of one notional increment for the purpose of pensionary benefits, and not for any other purpose, if they fulfil the criteria / requirement after the final order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above MA(s) / IA(s) in SLP.”

6. Since we have taken a decision in the earlier O.As, if we continue with the said decision, the interest of the department will not be frustrated. Therefore, we are passing similar order, as above.

7. In view of the same, the O.As are disposed of at the admission stage, in terms of the above directions. No order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document