Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Superintendent Of Post Offices vs P A V Swamy Naidu Died on 12 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No.25241 of 2024
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
3. 12.11.2024 RNT, J & CGR, J
Heard Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, learned
Central Government Counsel, for the petitioners.
2. The 1st respondent filed O.A.No.1499 of
2015, which was disposed of finally by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, vide
order dated 26.11.2015, on the following terms:
" In view of the pendency of the
representation, the OA is disposed of at
admission stage with a direction to the
respondents to consider the Annex.A-II dated
22.6.2015 for counting the qualifying service
from the date of his promotion against
vacancies of 2001 and to grant pension from
the date of retirement in accordance with rules
and pass a reasoned and speaking order
within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal, the
case of the 1st respondent was duly considered
but was rejected by order dated 22.12.2015 for
the reason that the qualifying service of the 1st
respondent was less than ten years for grant of
pension i.e. 9 years 5 months and 28 days. He
submits that the order dated 22.12.2015 was not
challenged by the 1st respondent. However, he
filed contempt petition in the said O.A. During
pendency of the contempt petition, the 1st
respondent died. The present 2nd respondent is
the widow of the 1st respondent. The Tribunal in
the contempt proceedings passed the order. The
operative portion, of which reads as under:
" Two weeks time has been granted to the
respondents comply with the order of the
Supreme Court in the light of the said
judgment by passing an appropriate order
extending the benefit of pension and family
pension to the applicant's family, since the
applicant died during the pendency of the
contempt petition."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that firstly the order of rejection on consideration
dated 22.12.2015 was not challenged. Thus, the
present petitioners had complied with the order of
the Tribunal dated 26.11.2015 and no case for
proceeding in contempt case was made out. He
further submits that the Tribunal has granted time
to comply with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India v. Gandiba
Behera in S.L.P.(C) No.13042 of 2014 dated
08.11.2019 and in the light thereof to pass
appropriate orders extending the benefit of
pension and family pension to the family of the 1st
respondent. He submits that so far the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme court is concerned, the
same related only to the respondents in that
case. However, the petitioners are ready to
comply with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the case of the 1st respondent herein as
well but the direction, which has been given by
the Tribunal is to extend the benefit of pension
and family pension to the family of the 1st
respondent, whereas, the direction by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gandiba Behera
(supra) was to consider the grant of relaxation as
in para 21 condition No.2, which reads as under:
".....(ii) In respect of the other respondents, who
have not been issued any order for pension, the
concerned ministry may consider as to whether
the minimum qualifying service Rule can be
relaxed in their cases in terms of Rule 88 of the
1972 Rules."
5. The matter requires consideration.
6. Issue notice to the 2nd respondent.
7. Let the counter-affidavit be filed within a
period of six weeks and two weeks thereafter is
granted for reply affidavit.
8. Post on 06.01.2025.
9. Prima facie, we find force in the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioners.
10. On consideration of the aforesaid
submissions, and Rule 88 of the 1972 Rules as
also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and
the petitioners stand to comply with the same, we
provide as an interim measure that the
proceedings of C.P.No.142 of 2016 pending
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, in
O.A.No.1499 of 2015 shall remain stayed till the
next date of listing before this Court, but in the
meantime, the petitioners shall consider the case
of the 1st respondent for grant of relaxation in
qualifying service for pension and family pension
to the 1st respondent's family, in terms of Rule 88
of the 1972 Rules and the direction of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated
08.11.2019, vide condition no.(ii).
_____________
RNT, J
_____________
CGR, J
Pab
