P.SILAS VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the dismissal of a miscellaneous application in a disposed of original application by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner has also challenged the dismissal of the review application which was filed challenging the order passed in the miscellaneous application.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Ticket Examiner on 16/11/1950 in the Southern Railway and he retired as a Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector on 30/6/1986 on attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of retirement, the applicant was receiving a scale of pay of Rs.700.00900 with basic pay of Rs.760.00. Since the petitioner was appreciating from Rs.700.00 to Rs.900.00 grade from 30/11/1984 to 12/2/1985, the petitioner increment was advanced to 1/3/1986 from 1/6/1986. The petitioner's pension was calculated on last 10 months average pay and it was fixed at Rs.997.00 per month. In the pension pay order, the petitioner was mistakenly granted Rs.873.00 as pension and Rs.112.00 personal pension from 1/7/1986. It continued from 1/7/1986 to 31/12/1987.

(3.) The petitioner had filed O.A.No.901 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal to fix his pension at Rs.1078.00 with effect from 1/7/1986 with all consequential benefits including the arrears. The said original application was allowed on 6/8/1999 directing the department to rework the pension and other benefits with effect from 1/7/1986. This order was challenged by the Administration before the High Court in W.P.No. 1409 of 2000. This Court had dismissed W.P.No.1409 of 2000. Pursuant to the dismissal of the said writ petition, the administration has sanctioned pension at Rs.1078.00 from 1/7/1986 vide order dtd. 28/1/2002. Not being satisfied, the petitioner had challenged the said order dtd. 28/1/2002 in O.A.No.644 of 2002. The Tribunal was pleased to allow the application and directed the administration to rework the applicant's pension in accordance with law, considering the observation made by the Tribunal in O.A.No.901 of 1997.