Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19555
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.HEMA, P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD – Appellant
Versus
GOWRIKUTTY AMMA – Respondent
REVIEW PETITION 973/2012
The ruling clarifies that pension disbursement is the responsibility of the Union of India, not the review petitioners, correcting a previous judicial error.
Headnote:
Review - Pension - CCS Pension Rules - Rule 88 - The court identified an error in its previous judgment concerning the responsibility for pension disbursement, clarifying that it is the Union of India responsible, not the review petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to review the court's prior judgment asserting that it erroneously indicated they were responsible for disbursing pensions, a role exclusively belonging to the Union of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed that there was no direction from the Tribunal for the review petitioners to disburse pensions and acknowledged the previous judgment's wording was erroneous.
Issues: Whether the court's previous observation incorrectly assigned pension disbursement responsibility to the review petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified its prior ruling, determining the error regarding pension responsibility required correction for justice.
Final Decision: The review petition is allowed.
O R D E R
Hema, J.
This petition is to review the judgment dated 27.7.2011.
The only grievance of petitioners is about the observation made by this Court in paragraph-4 of the judgment which is sought to be reviewed. The observation is this:
“what the Tribunal has done i.e. directing the petitioners to give pension, could be justified under Rule 88 of the CCS Pension Rules”.
2. According to petitioners, the Tribunal has not directed that the review petitioners shall give pension, as per its order. In fact, the authority, who can disburse the pension, is not the review petitioners. It is the 5th respondent, Union of India, which has to disburse the pension. Referring to the order of the Tribunal dated 27.1.2011 at paragraph-13, it is submitted that Tribunal has not observed that review petitioners have to : 2:
give pension. Therefore, the observation made by this Court in the judgment creates difficulties in respect of disbursal of pension, it is submitted. Since review petitioners are not liable to give pension and it is the Union of India which has to pay pension, the relevant observation made in the judgment has to be corrected, it is submitted.
3. Heard both sides. On going through the judgment sought to be reviewed and also the order of the Tribunal, we are satisfied of the submission made that as per the order of the Tribunal, no direction is issued to review petitioners to give pension. The said observation in the last line in paragraph-4 of the judgment of this Court which indicates to the contrary is therefore, an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we find that last line of paragraph-4 of the judgment of this Court has to be reviewed and the following order is passed:
Strike off from paragraph-4 of the judgment dated 27.72011 in O.P.(CAT) No.1522/11 of : 3:
this Court, the following words “i.e. directing the petitioners to give pension”.
The review petition is allowed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.
: 4:
: 5:
