Skip to content


Prabha Prathap and Others Vs. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Government of India, New Delhi and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided On
Case NumberOriginal Application No.180/00159 of 2014
Judge
AppellantPrabha Prathap and Others
RespondentUnion of India, Represented by the Secretary to Government of India, New Delhi and Others
Excerpt:
.....of this order. while taking such a decision, respondent no. 2 shall keep in view annexures a4 and a5 orders passed by this tribunal. it is made clear that we have not considered the merit or demerit of any of the contentions raised by the applicants.
Judgment:

A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member. J.

1. Applicants are stated to be working in the grade of Postman within the jurisdiction of Thiruvananthapuram South Postal Division. Their grievance is that they have been denied pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules treating them as though they had entered service after the introduction of the new pension scheme which came into force on January 1, 2004. According to the applicants they had entered service as Gramin Dak Sevaks much prior to January 1, 2004 and were selected and appointed to the grade of Postman against the vacancies that existed in 2002 against the merit quota of Gramin Dak Sevaks. It is in the above circumstances they have filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:-

"i. to declare that the applicants are entitled to be treated as appointed as postman with effect from 2002 the date of occurrence of vacancies for fixation of pay, pensionary benefits etc. and to direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the applicants;

ii. to direct the respondents to treat the applicants as covered under CCS (Pension) Rules, and to direct the respondents not to make recovery from the pay of the applicants towards contributions for pension and to refund the recoveries so made with interest @ 12% per annum from date of payment till date of actual repayment."

2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the applicants by Annexures A4 and A5 orders passed by this Tribunal.

3. Any how we do not deem it necessary to refer to or deal with the various contentions raised by the applicants in support of their case since it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that all the relevant aspects of the case have been highlighted in Annexure A6 representation. The limited prayer is to issue a direction to respondent No. 2 to take a decision in the matter without any further delay.

4. In the above facts and circumstances, the Original Application is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and pass orders on Annexure A6 representation submitted by applicant No. 1 and other similar representations submitted by other applicants strictly on their merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While taking such a decision, respondent No. 2 shall keep in view Annexures A4 and A5 orders passed by this Tribunal. It is made clear that we have not considered the merit or demerit of any of the contentions raised by the applicants.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //