Bombay High Court
Union Of India Through Gen. ... vs Kamal Vitthal Zalte on 25 February, 2021
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
Digitally
Vidya signed by
Vidya S. Amin
S. Date:
2021.02.26
Amin 11:04:41
+0530
3.WP3551_2020
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3551 OF 2020
Union of India, through General Manager
Central Railway, Mumbai CST & Anr. ... Petitioners
versus
Kamal Vitthal Zalte .. Respondent
Mr. T.J. Pandian a/w. Mr. T.C. Subramanian, Mr. Dheer Sampat
and Mr. Shivam singh for the petitioner/UOI.
Mr. Rajendra P. Saxena a/w. Mr. Anurag R. Saxena for the
respondent.
CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
G. S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE :- FEBRUARY 25, 2021.
PC :
1. This writ petition is directed against a judgment and
order dated October 24, 2019 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai whereby O.A.
No. 171 of 2007 (Kamal Vitthal Zalte vs. Union of India &
Ors.) along with other original applications was allowed by
passing the following order:
"36. In view of the relevant Rules and binding precedents,
we are of the considered view that the above OAs deserves
to be allowed and the same are accordingly allowed with
following directions:
(i) the respondents are directed to count the services of
their ex-employees in the aforesaid OAs rendered in
the capacity of the temporary status till the
3.WP3551_2020
regularization as 100% qualifying service for the
purpose of pension and other pensionary benefits.
(ii) the respondents are further directed to count 50% of
the services of the ex-employees in the aforesaid OAs
before grant of temporary status to them as qualifying
service for the purpose of pension and other pensionary
benefits.
(iii) the respondents shall pass necessary orders keeping in
view the above at (i) and (ii).
(iv) in view of the above, respondents shall also consider
and pass necessary order regarding claim of family
pension to the legal heirs in accordance with the
relevant rules.
(v) the applicants shall be entitled for the arrears of
pension, family pension as admissible under the
relevant rules with interest at rate of 6% p.a. on the
aforesaid arrears of pension and family pension, from
the dates when they became due.
(vi) T-he aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the
respondents within 90 days of receipt of a certified
copy of this order."
2. While hearing the writ petition for the first time on
October 27, 2020, we had required the petitioners to calculate
the quantum of pension and other retiral benefits to which the
respondent would be entitled, if the impugned order of the
Tribunal were to be given full effect. In terms of such order,
3.WP3551_2020
the petitioners have placed on record two statements, which
are taken on record and marked 'Exhibit-X' for identification.
3. It appears from such statements that the respondent
would be entitled to Rs.14,26,705/- on account of arrears of
pension that had accrued in favour of her late husband as well
as on account of family pension and further that she would be
entitled to pension in a sum of Rs.10,530/- per month
inclusive of admissible DA. It also appears that the
respondent would be entitled to balance amount of death-
cum-retiring gratuity in a sum of Rs.11,134/-.
4. We expressed surprise at the petitioners' attempt to
deny the respondent, a septuagenarian widow, of financial
benefits. Reacting to our query as to why the petitioners had
invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to deprive her of
such paltry sums, Mr. Pandian, learned advocate for the
petitioners very fairly submits that the petitioners would be
satisfied if an observation is made by the Court to the effect
that the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal shall
not be treated as a precedent in future cases.
3.WP3551_2020
5. Having regard to such submission and particularly in
view of the paltry sums which the respondent would be
entitled to, if we refuse to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order under challenge, we dispose of this writ
petition by refusing to interfere with such judgment and
order; however, we observe that such refusal to interfere shall
neither be construed as affirmance of the said judgment and
order nor shall it be treated as a precedent. The contentions
raised by the petitioners on merits are left open for being
adjudicated in an appropriate case, if the occasion therefor
arises in future. There shall be no order for costs.
6. Let the financial benefits be released in favour of the
respondent as early as possible but positively within two
months from date.
(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
