UNION OF INDIA (UOI), REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, Vs. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, CHENNAI,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 3 -8 -1998 made in O.A.No.387/96, in and by which, the Tribunal issued a direction to the petitioner to apply the liberalised pension scheme in the case of the deceased applicant by following of the necessary formalities in accordance with the Circular dated 23 -7 -1974 subject to the condition that the legal heirs of the deceased applicant, namely, the respondents 2 to 5 herein refund the amount received by the deceased applicant by way of government contribution as well as special contribution to provident fund.

(2.) While granting the above said relief, the Tribunal mainly relied on a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in : (UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus D.R.R.SASTRI). In the above stated judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, a direction came to be issued to the Railways in respect of an employee who happened to be in the service of the Railways on 1 -1 -1973, to whom the circular dated 23 -7 -1994 was applicable, who came forward to exercise the option only in the year 1993, which was turned down by the Railways and when the said rejection was challenged by him before the Tribunal, the challenge was accepted, whereby, the Railways was directed to accept the option exercised by the retiree, even though, the option was exercised nearly after 18 years. The direction of the Tribunal was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court on the ground that the Railways granted a similar benefit to another employee who also retired in the year 1973, but who was granted the relief in the year 1994. In fact, a contention was raised before the Honourable Supreme Court that in view of the Constitutional Bench decision of the Supreme Court Court reported in : (KRISHENA KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, ETC.,), the direction of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. However, the Honourable Supreme Court, in view of the special facts involved in that case, declined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) Mr. V.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the issue concerning the grant of relief was dealt with in extenso in the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in : wherein the Honourable Supreme Court, while considering the various orders of the Railways, right from the year 1957 till the year 1987, in and by which, at different point of time, the Railways came forward to extend the benefit to its employees who opted to accept the provident fund benefits as their service benefit, to switch over to the pensionary benefits for different reasons.