IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 26338 of 2003(S) -------------------------- OA.168/2001 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. 2. POST MASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI-16. 3. POSTMASTER, ALUVA HEAD POST OFFICE, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.N.ANILKUMAR, ADDL.CGSC SRI. AJITH KRISHNAN, ADDL.CGSC RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. T.K.SAROJINI, W/O. PARAMESWARAN VAIDYAR, PERUMBILLY HOUSE, SOUTH VAZHAKULAM POST, ALUVA-5. 2. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN O.P.No.26338/03 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL application NO.168/01 DATED 2.1.01. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OA.168/01 DATED 20.7.01 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OA.168/01 DATED 6.2.02 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.9.02 IN OA.168/01 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.26338 OF 2003 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JULY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are respondents in O.A.No.168/01 before the CAT, Ernakulam Bench. The applicant retired from the Department of Posts on superannuation on 31.10.1993. Thereafter she was appointed as Extra Departmental Sub Postmaster with effect from 23.9.1994. She was relieved from that post on 9.9.1996. While working on re-employment, she was paid only a monthly allowance called ED allowance as also dearness relief for the pension payable to her. Later, the petitioners took the view that she is not eligible to get dearness relief and therefore steps were taken to recover that amount. Challenging those steps the OA was filed. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and taking into account the contentions of the writ petitioners in their reply statement allowed the OA. The Tribunal took the view that the rules relied on by the writ petitioners are applicable to only those pensioners appointed on regular basis in the Department and not to ED posts. The decision, cited by the petitioners, of the Apex Court in Vasedevan Pillay v. Union of India (1995(1) KLT 410) was distinguished holding that the said decision applies only to W.P.(C)No.26338/03 2 those reappointed to regular posts in the Department and not ED posts. 2. The writ petitioners who are respondents in the OA attacks the above finding of the Tribunal . All the rules or orders relied on by the petitioners apply to those re-employed in regular posts under the Department concerned. No order or rule or decision has been produced by the petitioners to show that the ED employee is ineligible for dearness relief on re-employment. In view of the above position, we are of the view that the finding of the Tribunal is a plausible view on the materials produced before it. The ED agent is paid only a pittance by way of ED allowance. For those who are re-employed in regular posts in the Department, their pay and allowances will be substantial. Such persons are rightly denied the benefit of dearness relief on pension. But those rules or orders are not applicable in the case of ED agents. So, we find that no ground has been made out warranting interference with the decision of the CAT. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn