UNION OF INDIA Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid writ petition has been filed by the Union of India (Railway Ministry) and two others challenging the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras in R.A.No.44 of 2000, rejecting such application and refusing to review the order in O.A.No.290 of 1998. In the said O.A.No.290 of 1998, the Tribunal had directed the present petitioners to settle the retired benefits due to the applicant (present Respondent No.2).

(2.) IN order to appreciate the questions raised, it would be appropriate to notice the facts in some detail. For convenience, the present Respondent No.2, who had filed O.A.No.290 of 1998, is hereinafter referred to as "the employee" and the present petitioners, who were the respondents before the Tribunal, are referred to as "the employer". The employee was in service under the Southern Railways. As per the resolution of All INdia Loco Running Staff Association dated 28.1.1981, there was an agitation with effect from 1.2.1981. The employee was removed from service on 2.2.1981 as per the order issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, without holding any enquiry. Many such matters were challenged in the Court and ultimately the Supreme Court disposed of the matters in judgment reported in AIR 1985 SC 1416 (UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. TULSIRAM PATEL). As per the observation of the Supreme Court, the appeal preferred by the employee was considered, but it was rejected by order dated 10.11.1986. The employee challenged the order in O.A.No.363 of 1987. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, by order dated 5.12.1989, directed for fresh consideration in respect of the punishment. The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway by order dated 15.6.1990 modified the order of removal from service to one of compulsory retirement with effect from 2.2.1981. It is claimed in the O.A., by the employee that a provisional pension was ordered with effect from 1.12.1991. Taking heart from the fact that punishment in respect of other employees of the very same Trichy Division had been modified to reduction to the minimum of grade for 6 months and certain orders of removal had been set aside by Kerala and Karnataka High Courts, the employee filed a representation dated 5.1.1992 requesting to accord the same treatment to him and to reinstate him in service. However, since no reply was forthcoming from the authority concerned, the employee filed O.A.No.856 of 1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. However, such application was dismissed by order dated 26.7.1995. The Special Leave Petition filed by the employee is stated to have been rejected on 6.8.1997. IN the Original Application filed by the employee it was claimed that, but for the order of removal from the service/compulsory retirement, the normal date of retirement of the employee would have been on 30.11.1988. It was also indicated therein that while the matter was pending before the Supreme Court on the earlier occasion, the employee was being paid salary from 2.2.1981 to June, 1985, obviously pursuant to the interim order passed by the Supreme Court in the said case. It was further claimed that the employee had opted for pensionary benefit on 3.12.1982 before the Loco Foreman, Southern Railway, Trichirapalli. However, subsequently the benefit of pension was denied to him on the ground that he had not opted for pensionary benefits before he had been removed from service, which was subsequently changed to one of compulsory retirement with effect from 2.2.1981. It was claimed in the Original Application that the persons who were removed from the service along with the employee, particularly one Duraikannu and one Pitchaikannu, have been given pension, but he was treated differently without any justification. With the aforesaid basic allegations, the employee had claimed before the Tribunal that he should be granted pension from 30.11.1988 and he should be given gratuity, leave salary, LIC money recovered from his salary and commutation pension.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the employee has submitted that as a matter of fact the employee was receiving the salary till July, 1985, albeit as per the interim orders of the Supreme Court, and therefore, it must be taken that he was continuing in service at least till July, 1985. It is also contended that as a matter of fact, the ratio of the decision reported in (1993) 4 SCC 269 (UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. R. REDDAPPA AND ANOTHER), which is a general order, applicable to the Railway employees who had been dismissed by applying Rule 14(ii). Those who had been dismissed were directed to be reinstated and the employee was in fact entitled to the benefit of such decision, and therefore, it should be taken that he had retired only in 1988, his normal age of retirement. LEARNED counsel for the employee has also indicated that several other persons had been given the benefit of pension even though option was exercised in 1983 and there is no reason to treat the present Respondent No.2 (employee) on a different footing.