Union Of India vs P. Ramankutty
2024 Latest Caselaw 16694 Ker

Kerala High Court

Union Of India vs P. Ramankutty on 12 June, 2024

Author: Amit Rawal

Bench: Amit Rawal

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
                                   &
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
    WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                        OP (CAT) NO. 219 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2016 IN OA NO.683 OF 2015
OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

    1     UNION OF INDIA
          REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,
          MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW
          DELHI- 110 001
    2     THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL
          KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM- 695 101.
    3     THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
          TIRUR POSTAL DIVISION, TIRUR- 676 104.
          BY ADVS.
          ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
          SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:

          P. RAMANKUTTY, AGED 58 YEARS
          S/O AYYAPPAN,MTS, KALPAKANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM POSTAL
          DIVISION, RESIDING AT PANAYOLAKKATTIL HOUSE, NANNAMBRA
          P.O. MALAPPURAM - 676 320.
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
          SHRI.GODWIN JOSEPH
          SHRI.VIVEK A.V.

     THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.06.2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP (CAT) NO. 219 OF 2017
                                  2


               AMIT RAWAL & EASWARAN S., JJ.
                ------------------------------------
                    OP (CAT) No.219 of 2017
                 -------------------------------------
              Dated this the 12th day of June, 2024

                          JUDGMENT

Easwaran S., J.

The respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal are

the petitioners herein.

2. The original application was filed by the respondent

herein seeking for a direction to the petitioners/respondents to place

the applicant into the Statutory Pension Scheme under the Central

Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 by placing him notionally with

effect from the date of occurrence of the vacancy in Group-D.

3. The facts disclosed in the original application show that

the applicant was a Group-D employee, who was selected from the

post of Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) and appointed on 31.12.2003.

Though he was so appointed against a vacancy of 2002, based on

the seniority, he was selected and appointed as per Annexure-A1

letter against the vacancy of 2003. The information obtained under

the Right to Information Act disclosed that the actual appointment

took effect from 8.1.2004. It was contended that the appointment OP (CAT) NO. 219 OF 2017

was given before 01.01.2004, i.e. prior to the announcement of the

National Pension Scheme and therefore, should have been included

in the prevailing statutory pension scheme. In support, relied on

Annexure-A4 judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which

was confirmed by this Court in OP(CAT) No.3084/2013.

4. The claim was resisted by the petitioners on the ground

that the applicant was appointed in the post of Multi Tasking Staff

(MTS) with effect from 1.1.2004, though he was appointed against

the vacancy of the year 2002. It was submitted that permission for

filling up of the vacancy was received on 10.12.2003 and that the

appointment order was issued on 31.12.2003. Considering the rival

contentions raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunal came to the

conclusion that the selection of the applicant based on the

recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee was

prior to the promulgation of the Pension Rules and therefore, the

applicant was entitled to have the period notionally calculated from

the date of arising of the vacancy/selection by the Departmental

Promotion Committee, directed that the petitioners be placed under

the Statutory Pension Scheme under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

The contributions made under the National Pension Scheme were OP (CAT) NO. 219 OF 2017

also directed to be refunded.

5. Challenging the aforesaid directions, the respondents

before the Tribunal and the petitioners herein have approached this

Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. We have heard Sri.T.V.Vinu, learned Central Government

Counsel appearing for the petitioners/respondents and Sri.V.Sajith

Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/applicant.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,

Sri.T.V.Vinu, submitted that the notification for the new Pension

Scheme came into effect on 22.12.2003 and therefore, the selection

of the applicant after the said notification should be necessarily

governed under the new Pension Scheme, thus, according to

Sri.T.V.Vinu, the direction of the Tribunal cannot be sustained.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/applicant, Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, placed on record the

judgment of the Delhi High Court in Shyam Kumar Choudhary &

Ors. v. Union of India [2019 SCC Online Del 11891] to contend

that the applicant was entitled to be included under the old Pension

Scheme because the selection was pursuant to an examination in

the year 2003. He also submitted that the same view is taken by a OP (CAT) NO. 219 OF 2017

Coordinate Bench of this Court in OP(CAT) No.3080/2013 as per

Annexure-A5 judgment dated 29.10.2013 and therefore, prayed for

dismissal of the original petition.

9. We have considered the rival submissions raised across

the bar.

10. The point to be considered by this Court is as to whether

the applicant's selection pursuant to an earlier notification issued

prior to the new Pension Scheme which came into effect on 1.1.2004

should be governed by the said Pension Scheme or under the old

Pension Scheme. We are not impressed by the argument raised by

the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the notification was

issued on 22.12.2003 bringing into force the new Pension Scheme,

the applicant should be governed by the new Pension Scheme.

Admittedly, the selection was to a vacancy which arose prior to the

promulgation of the new Rules. Though the petitioners raised a very

same contention before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in OP(CAT)

No.3083/2013, this Court was not inclined to accept the said

contention. Further, in the judgment reported in Shyam Kumar

Choudhary (supra), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has

also taken the same view.

OP (CAT) NO. 219 OF 2017

On consideration of the entire facts and law, we are not

inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal. The order does not suffer from any

jurisdictional error or illegality warranting interference under Article

227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Original Petition is

dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

Sd/-

EASWARAN S. JUDGE

jg OP (CAT) NO. 219 OF 2017

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 219/2017

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPOINTMENT ISSUED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR, KOTTACKAL SUB DIVISION ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.VIG/RTI/46/2014-15 DATED 27.02.2015 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.CO/LC/OA/32/08 DATED 08.07.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2013 IN OA NO.560/2012 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.10.2013 IN OP(CAT) NO.3084/2013 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.03.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2014 IN OA NO.92/2014 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH ANNEXURE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RECT/9-2/2-2 DATED R1(A) 10.12.2003 EXHIBITP1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.180/00683/2015 DATED 20- 08-2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH EXHIBITP2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 05-02-2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS EXHIBITP3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.180/00683/2015 DATED 26-07-2016 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE DO NO.4-1(1)/2020-PENSION DATED R1(a) 25.2.2020 ISSUED BY R1 HEREIN ALONG WITH OP (CAT) NO. 219 OF 2017

O.M.NO.57/04/2019-P&PW(B) DATED 17.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS WELFARE.

Exhibit A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE REPORT OF THIS R1(b) RESPONDENT EVIDENCING THE DATE OF JOINING DUTY AS 01.01.2004 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS Exhibit A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2014 IN R1(c) O.A.NO. 92/2014 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH Exhibit A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2013 IN R1(d) O.A.NO. 560/2012 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH Exhibit A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.10.2013 IN R1(e) O.P(CAT) NO. 3084/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit A TRUE COPY OF THE O.M. NO. 57/05/2021-P&PW(B) R1(f) DATED 03.03.2023 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS' WELFARE Exhibit A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED R1(g) 23.03.2023 BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE OP(CAT) Exhibit A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B2/COVERAGE UNDER R1(h) OPS DATED 30.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER