APURBA KUMAR SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17.4.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.675 of 2006 by which learned Single Judge had been pleased to dismiss the writ petition with cost as it was held that the petitioner/ appellant herein knowing fully well that his application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench had been dismissed on 9.5.1994 and had attained its finality, yet he filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi ignoring the effect of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench though the appellant could have preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Tribunal before which the appeal at the relevant point of time would have been maintainable.

(2.) THE petitioner/appellant had filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge with a prayer that he was entitled to the benefit of the pensionary scheme still he was allowed to be governed by the contributory provident fund scheme though the pensionary benefit had been made available to the employees of Central Fuel Research Institute which is the organization from which the appellant had resigned. Since the petitioner was denied the benefit of the pension scheme, he had filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, vide O.A No.129 of 1992 wherein the appellant had sought relief of grant of pension scheme in place of the contributory provident fund scheme. As already indicated hereinbefore, the Tribunal dismissed the application holding therein that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as against the employees of the Central Coalfields Limited but in spite of that, it decided the issue holding therein that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of contributory provident fund scheme as he had failed to exercise the option of pension scheme when it was floated by the respondent organization for the benefit of its employees. The appellant acquiesced with the order passed by the Tribunal as he failed to prefer any appeal before the Supreme Court which was maintainable in the year 1994 and at the same time he also availed all the benefits of the contributory provident fund scheme by availing the amount which was payable to him under the contributory provident fund scheme. However, after ten years of the dismissal of the case by the Tribunal, the appellant filed a representation before the respondent organization for considering his plea for grant of the benefit of the pension scheme which was rejected.