SATYENDRA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is son of the deceased employee, has filed the present writ application challenging the order dated 29.01.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, (in short the Tribunal) in O.A. no. 418 of 2000 (Satyendra Kumar versus Union of India & Anr.), whereby the prayer of the original application (writ petitioner herein) to pay arrears of salary due to his father, for the period 27.8.1986 to 13.11.1986, 23.12.2986 to 29.1.1987 and 26.11.1987 to 12.5.1991, has been rejected. Paragraph 3 of the order passed by the learned Tribunal reads thus:

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The father of the petitioner was employed in the Indian Railways. He retired from service on 31.5.1997 and thereafter remained alive till 28.10.1998. After his death, his son (present petitioner) approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. no. 506 of 1999 claiming payment of arrears of salary admissible/payable to the deceased employee i.e. his father. The said application was disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the authority by filing representation, and the authorities were directed to consider, and dispose of the same by a reasoned order. Consequently, the petitioner approached the authority by filing a representation which was considered and rejected by a reasoned order 20.12.1999 (Annexure-2). The said order was again put in issue by filing O.A. no. 418 of 2000 which was disposed of in the manner noted above.. Writ petitioner consumed four years to consider the reasons assigned in the said order, and ultimately approached this court by filing the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the authorities as contained in Annexure-2.

(3.) We have perused the order passed by the authorities on 20.12.1999 (Annexure-2). It appears therefrom that the deceased employee, upon superannuation ,had been paid all the post retiral dues. He was thus satisfied with the payments made to him upon superannuation. It further appears from the record that after retirement, he remained alive for about one year and five months. No issue/claim was raised by him. We can, therefore, safely presume that he was satisfied with the payment of post retiral dues. It further appears from the order impugned that the authorities made available all the relevant details concerning the employee wherefrom it was found that there was no scope for adjustment of period of absence from duty for more than four years.