S PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR Vs. P J THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2008 as Junior Telecom Officer. While the petitioner was in service in the Department of Telecommunications, the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ('BSNL' for short) was incorporated on 1.10.2000. Thereupon, options were invited from employees of the Department of Telecommunications either to join BSNL or to continue in the Department of Telecommunications. The petitioner opted to join the BSNL. However, in view of the pendency of a vigilance case against him, that option was not accepted. Overlooking the said fact, the petitioner was granted the scale of pay applicable to BSNL employees. Later, the said mistake was found out and steps were taken to recover the excess salary and allowances paid to him. The petitioner thereupon filed O.A. No. 370 of 2005 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. By Annexure-A order passed on 28.4.2006, the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the application and set aside the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Challenging the said order, respondents in O.A. No. 370 of 2005 filed W.P.(C) No. 19412 of 2006 in this Court. When the said writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein (he was the respondent in the said writ petition) submitted that CDA pay scale is more beneficial to the petitioner, and therefore, he is not opposing the writ petition. In the light of the said submission, a Division Bench of this Court set aside Annexure-A order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in O.A. No. 370 of 2005 and declared that the petitioner will be governed by CDA pay scale, viz., the scale of pay applicable to employees of the Department of Telecommunications.

(2.) This contempt of case is filed alleging that notwithstanding the directions issued by this Court in Annexure- B order, the pensionary benefits have not so far been disbursed to the petitioner. It is stated that only provisional pension is being disbursed to him, on the ground that a vigilance case against him is pending.

(3.) The respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 16.2.2010. It is stated therein that a vigilance case is pending against the petitioner; that he was sanctioned only provisional pension and that other retirement benefits have not been granted. It is further contended that this Court had only observed in W.P.(C) No. 19412 of 2006 that if there is no legal bar in releasing the pensionary benefits because of the pendency of the vigilance case, the same shall be released within three months from the date of Annexure-B judgment, and as there is a legal bar, the pensionary benefits were withheld.