O.A. No. 145 of 2010. Case: Nadir Ali Vs Union of India. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 145 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Praveen Kumar, Advocate and For Respondents: B.B. Tripathi, Advocate |
| Judges | Navneet Kumar, Member (J) |
| Issue | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 |
| Citation | 2014 (1) SLJ 333 (CAT) |
| Judgement Date | October 04, 2013 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Navneet Kumar, Member (J), (Lucknow Bench)
1. The present O.A. is preferred by the applicant under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 with the following reliefs:-
1. To count the casual period from January, 1963 to 8.2.1973 i.e. total 3685 days to wards qualifying services and revise the pensionary benefits to the applicant.
2. To pay arrears of pensionary benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum after revision of pensionary benefits also release with held NHA for the year 2000 and 2002 for about 1 days.
3. Any other relief, which this Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed,
4. Cost of the present case.
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant worked as casual labour under the respondents from January, 1963 to 1973 and subsequently, the applicant was regularized and finally retired on 31.12.2002. Thereafter, when the payment was made to the applicant, he found certain discrepancies towards pensionary benefits. As such he made representation and when nothing was heard, he made certain other representations and finally preferred the present O.A. before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 609/2001 which is in regard to not counting of entire period of service in determining the pensionary benefit of the applicant. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the said order was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court has also dismissed the Writ Petition but copy of the order passed in Writ Petition is not available on record. However, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the Writ Petition No. 619(SB) of 2007 decided which was filed by the Union of India was decided on 24.5.2007. Placing reliance on the judgment of earlier O. A., the applicant also claims for the same benefit.
2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have filed their reply and through reply, it was pointed out by the respondents that the applicant was selected and appointed as ESM against 25% quota reserved for daily rated skilled artisan on 9.2.1973. Before his regular appointment, he has worked as daily rated ESM. The learned Counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the Master Circular No. 54 and as per the said circular, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the service rendered by the daily rated employees cannot be treated as qualifying service. It is again reiterated by the learned Counsel for the respondents that in terms of Para 21 of the Master Circular No. 54, years the period of service rendered...
To continue reading
Request your trial