P.P.BHASKARAN Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order dated 22.08.2012 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, dismissing the Miscellaneous Application in M.A.No.408 of 2011 and the Original Application in O.A.No.1008 of 2012 filed by the petitioner, the Writ Petition has been filed. The petitioner in the Original Application approached the first respondent Tribunal to declare that he is entitled to receive pension for the period of service rendered in the Central Public Works Department from 20.11.1964 to 30.08.1977. Along with the Original Application, the petitioner had also filed the Miscellaneous Application to waive the waiting period of six months from the date of representation for filing the Original Application. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application and the Original Application holding that the cause of action arose in 1977 and therefore it has no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court in the present Writ Petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Section Officer in the Central Public Works Department on 20.11.1964 on temporary basis. The post was subsequently re -designated as Junior Engineer (Civil). He was sent on deputation to International Airports Authority of India on 08.07.1975, which was later renamed as Airports Authority of India, where the petitioner was absorbed with effect from 01.09.1977 and retired in December 2000 as Assistant General Manager (Civil). The petitioner sent various representations including the one on 12.02.2011 to the fourth respondent claiming pension for the period 20.11.1964 to 30.08.1977. As the fourth respondent did not pass any orders, he had filed the Original Application along with the Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal.

(3.) THE Tribunal holding that the petitioner has not made out a case for entertaining the Miscellaneous Application, dismissed the M.A. and further went on to hold that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain any application with regard to the claim which arose in 1977 and that even on merits the application cannot be entertained, and dismissed the Original Application.