Pension orders already issued to employees should not be disturbed or cancelled, even if the minimum qualifying service was not met, in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by K.Kumaresh Babu J.)

The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent i.e. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A. No.475 of 2022 dated 03.01.2023 and quash the same.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Mr.C.Samivel, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent was appointed as Group 'D' official with effect from 11.10.2002 and had been superannuated on 31.03.2011. As he had not completed the 10 years of qualifying service, he was not benefited with the pensionary benefits and was paid the service gratuity alone. He had earlier approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.526 of 2013 for the very same relief and the same was dismissed by order dated 18.12.2015. Challenging the same, the petitioners had approached this court in W.P.(MD) No.10677 of 2016, which was allowed by a Division Bench on 06.06.2017. Pursuant to the same, a Pension Payment Order dated 10.11.2017 was issued, however, the same came to be cancelled subsequently. He would submit that being aggrieved by the order of this court, a Special Leave Petition was filed in SLP(C) Diary No.13464 of 2018 and the same was tagged alongwith Civil Appeal No.2793 of 2022 and the Civil Appeal was taken alongwith a batch of cases including the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioners and the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal in terms of the order made in Civil Appeal No.8497 of 2019. He would further submit that the order impugned before the Tribunal could not have been interfered by the Tribunal as it is found that the second respondent had not completed the qualifying service. He would submit that since the second respondent had been appointed in the regular service only in the year 2002 and having been superannuated on 31.03.2011, he had completed the service of 8 years, 5 months and 19 days alone and therefore, he was not entitled to any pension. Hence, he seeks for the indulgence of this court.

Countering his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that this court, in the writ petition filed by the second respondent in W.P.(MD) No.10677 of 2016, the Division Bench had specifically held that the services rendered by the second respondent in ED service should also be counted for reckoning the same as qualifying service. Even though the SLP was filed by the petitioners, the same, in the diary stage, came to be tagged alongwith Civil Appeal No.8979 of 2014 by order of the Hon'ble Apex court dated 27.04.2018. There has been no interim order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Having issued the revised Pension Order, pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this court, cancelling the same unilaterally, without any order of stay by the Hon'ble Apex Court or revision by it, is nothing but a contemptuous act of the petitioners. He would further submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the above batch of cases, had specifically held that wherever pension orders have been issued and released, the same should not be disturbed and only in other cases, the petitioners were called upon to assess whether any relaxation could be given. He would further submit that only in the year 2022, in the SLP filed by the petitioners, leave came to be granted and allowed in terms of the order made in Civil Appeal No.8497 of 2019. Hence, he would submit that there is no necessity for this court to interfere with the order impugned herein, which squarely relied upon the Apex Court judgment in that regard.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8497 of 2019, etc., batch had dealt with an identical issue and relying on the contention of the Government that it wo