UNION OF INDIA Vs. K.S. SURENDRANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Retired Loco Supervisors approached the Tribunal after their retirement claiming enhancement of pension. The claim of enhancement was based on their alleged entitlement as running staff to 55% of the Basic Pay for reckoning the pension as against the 30% reckoned, treating them to be other than running staff. Railways, has a contention that the Loco Supervisors cannot be termed to be running staff. The Tribunal allowed the O.A but, noticed that identical dispute is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and allowed the relief prayed for, subject to the outcome of the SLP or Civil Appeal pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(2.) We have heard learned Standing Counsel Sri. S. Radhakrishnan appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Martin G Thottan appearing for the respondents. The SLP pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noticed by the Tribunal, was disposed of directing the Railways to file a review before the Court which passed the impugned judgment, ie: the High Court of Delhi. The Railways availing such liberty granted filed a review before the High Court of Delhi which stood dismissed. The learned Standing Counsel Sri.S.Radhakrishnan has handed over a copy of the interim order of stay in the further SLP filed by Railways, from the order rejecting the RP. The SLP has also been converted to a Civil Appeal.In such circumstances as of now, the relief claimed in the O.A cannot be granted to the petitioners which would definitely depend upon the final disposal of the Civil Appeal.

(3.) Sri.S.Radhakrishnan also points out that there is a question of delay agitated there; specifically pointing out that here also the OAs were filed six years after the retirement of the applicants. Since all the questions are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court we need not express any opinion on the same. However, we are of the opinion that the Original Petition (CAT) need not be kept pending since the disposal of Civil Appeal No.3110/2016 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, from the order of the Delhi High Court, rejecting the review would govern the matter; even with respect to the respondents herein.