RA No. 10/2010 In TA-557/2009. Case: 1. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, MTNL Corporate Office, Through General Manager, 2. Union of India through its Deputy Director General (Estt.), Department of Telecom, Ministry of Communication Information & Technology, 3. Secretary, Department of Personnel & Public Grievances & Pension Vs 1. All India Central Government Canteen Employees Association & Canteen Mazdoor Sabha Regd through its General Secretary/Attorney, Vidya Nand Sharma, 2. Balam Singh s/o Late Kunwar Singh, 3. Chander Bal Singh. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | RA No. 10/2010 In TA-557/2009 |
| Counsel | Rachna Joshi Issar |
| Judges | Shanker Raju (Judicial Member) & N. D. Dayal (Accountant Member) |
| Issue | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 22(3)(f) |
| Judgement Date | February 03, 2010 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
Shanker Raju (Judicial Member), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
-
This RA is filed by the respondents in TA against an order passed on 25.9.2009 in TA-557/2009, proceeding the respondents ex parte under Rule 16 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Accordingly we have heard the parties.
-
In TA applicants have challenged an order passed on 15.10.2005, whereby finding less than 10 years Service reckoning from 1.10.1991 the case of voluntary retirement was turned down. However, the applicants continued.
-
Applicants are erstwhile employees of department of Telecommunication and were deemed absorbed in MTNL w.e.f. 1.11.1988. A clarification issued by the Apex Court in IA No.3 in W.P. No.6189-7044/1983, decided on 10.8.1983 directed for the purpose of calculating pension Service to be reckoned from 26.9.1983, i.e., from the date when interim orders were passed instead of 11.10.1991. Applicants have prayed, inter alia, in the TA grant of pro rata pension w.e.f. 1.11.1998 on deemed retirement from Department of Telecommunication, have also prayed for grant of gratuity etc. but we restricted the order to prayer (c), i.e., a direction to the respondents to count Service from 26.9.1983 rendered under the Central Government and grant pro-rata pension w.e.f. 1.11.1998. In this regard, learned counsel of review applicants states that when the Writ Petition basically has been founded on voluntary retirement scheme, superannuation pension has to be construed in its strict sense and as the decision of the Apex Court cannot be correctly read to imply that applicants/respondents in RA are entitled to count their Service from 26.9.1983, the order of the Tribunal has been passed on a misconceived notion and false averments by the respondents in RA, as there is no foundation as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial