SREEKANDAN NAIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. We have gone through the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was initially appointed as a casual labourer way back in 1978 and terminated on 05.01.1982. Challenging his termination, he approached Tribunal only in 1994 in O.A. No. 23 of 1994. However, Annexure A1 order was rendered in his favour with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders. He was re-engaged as casual labourer with effect from 04.05.1994. Subsequently he retired on 31.05.2009.

(3.) THEN coming to the deduction of Rs.296/- from the pension of the applicant, there is no proper explanation why this amount cannot be deducted. Tribunal said, if any wrong deduction is made, the applicant can file a representation as the pension is payable every month and the same has to be considered by the Department. Such liberty is also assured to the petitioner by the Tribunal. After regard to the reasoning of the Tribunal in passing the impugned order, we are of the opinion, nothing remains for us to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed.