ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the communications dated 12.04.2012 and 12.07.2012 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexures-A1 to A6 and Annexure-B respectively. A mandamus is also sought to direct respondents to pay dearness relief payable on the family pension of petitioner Nos.1 to 5 from the respective dates on which the dearness relief family pension had been withdrawn or not paid to them on compassionate grounds.

2. The case revolves around denial of dearness relief on pension to petitioner Nos.1 to 5, who are family pensioners of the New Mangalore Port Trust. The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation and application of pension regulations vis-à-vis the entitlement to dearness relief, particularly in light of agreements and regulations aligning the New Mangalore Port Trust's policies with those of the Central Government.

3. The Court considered the relevant legal precedents and agreements. These include the amendment to the Central Civil Services (Pensions) Rules in 1991, which extended the benefit of dearness relief on family pension to pensioners re-employed under Central or State Government entities or their Corporations. Additionally, the Court examined the wage settlements dated 2010, 2013, and

2018, wherein the New Mangalore Port Trust and Port Federations agreed to adopt pension regulations consistent with the Central Civil Services Pension Rules.

4. The petitioners contended that they were entitled to dearness relief on their pension by virtue of the aforementioned regulations and agreements. Conversely, the respondent, the New Mangalore Port Trust, argued that the decision to grant dearness relief vested with the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, and thus, they were not competent to make such decisions independently.

Analysis and Findings:

5. The case pertains to the denial of dearness relief on pension to petitioners who are family pensioners of the New Mangalore Port Trust i.e., respondent No.2. The documents presented indicate reluctance on the part of the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, and the New Mangalore Port Trust to extend the benefit of dearness relief to re-employed pensioners and employed family pensioners.

6. The Court carefully analyzed the records, including the relevant provisions, agreements, and legal precedents. It noted that the New Mangalore Port Trust had committed to adopting pension regulations consistent with the Central Civil Services Pension Rules through various agreements and recommendations. Furthermore, the delay in implementing these regulations underscored the urgency of addressing the petitioners' grievances.

7. The Court notes with concern the apparent lack of inclination on the part of the Ministry of Shipping and the New Mangalore Port Trust to resolve the issue of dearness relief. Despite calls for proposals and amendments to the Central Civil Service Pension Rules, there seems to be a reluctance to extend the benefit, citing financial burden.

8. While the Union of India has extended the benefit of dearness relief to its employees through amendments to the pension rules, there remains clear inaction concerning employees of major ports. The Indian Ports Association and Federations, including respondent No.2, have resolved to incorporate the provisions of the Central Civil Service Rules relating to pension. However, the benefit of dearness relief on pension continues to be denied indefinitely.

9. In considering the additional documents and information provided, it becomes evident that the case at hand represents more than just a dispute over dearness relief on pension; it underscores broader issues of administrative responsiveness and adherence to agreements within the realm of pension regulations. The reluctance displayed by both the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, and the New Mangalore Port Trust in addressing the petitioners' concerns raises serious questions about their commitment to resolving