IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 13484 of 2009(S) {OA.173/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH} .................... PETITIONER(S): 1. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER RAIL WHEEL FACTORY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER RAIL WHEEL FACTORY,MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, PERSONAL DEPARTMENT YELAHANKA, BANGALORE. 3. FINANCE ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE FA & CAO (PENSION) SOUTHERN RAILWAY HEADQUARTERS PARK TOWN, CHENNAI. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE P.THOMAS, SR.SC,RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): S.SANTHOSH S/O. R.SANKARA WARIER (SENIOR CLERK, COMPULSORILY RETIRED) SREEVILAS, CHANGANKULANGARA, VAVVAKKAVU, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13484 of 2009 :: 2 :: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.173/2008 DATED 12.02.09. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.173/2008 DATED WITH ALL ITS ANNEXURES. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED NIL JUNE 2008 WITH ALL ITS ANNEXURES. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF RULE 10 (2) OF RAILWAY SERVICE (EXTRA-ORDINATEY PENSION) RULES 1993 AND SCHEDULE III OF RULE 10(2) C DISABILITY PENSION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R(A): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.2.1997 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.R(B): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.3.03 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER'S OFFICE. EXT.R(C): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.9.07 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. //true copy// P.S. To Judge SK/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.13484of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The respondent worked for the writ petitioner, the Railways. Going by Ext.R(c) judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this court inter partis, it is noticed that on account of continuous illness, the respondent remained unauthorisedly absent. He was also a psychiatric patient. On the ground of unauthorised absence,he was finally dismissed and that was converted as a compulsory retirement. However, in the revisional order, the Departmental Authority took the stand that the appellate authority has shown sympathy in the case of the respondent and reduced it to compulsory retirement apparently due to ill health. It was stated that since the pensionary benefits in real terms are not going to be affected and the delinquent has not brought out any new point, the decision of the appellate authority is upheld. The respondent carried that matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.600/06. The tribunal W.P.(C)No.13484 of 2009 :: 2 :: ordered that application in the following manner: “In view of the above, Original Application is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to calculate the extent of pension payable under two different stages and in case both are identical the applicant be so informed and if disability pension happens to be more, his pension may be accordingly revised. This order is passed as the rejection of applicant's request for the same was on the premise that there would be no difference in the quantum of pension payable to the applicant.” 2. This court affirmed the aforesaid direction and held that the Central Administrative Tribunal had noticed that the highest authority viz., revisional authority, dealing with the disciplinary proceedings, proceeded on the footing that the benefits available to him on retirement on medical grounds and on compulsory retirement as punishment are the same. It was, therefore, that the Central Administrative Tribunal, at that point of time ordered to work out the W.P.(C)No.13484 of 2009 :: 3 :: benefits under both the schemes and to pay him, whichever is beneficial to him. This court did not find any illegality in that direction of the Tribunal. Later, it appears that, disputes arose as to the modality in arriving at the disability pension to be paid to the respondent. He again went to the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.173/08. According to him, the disability pension has to be calculated by taking into consideration the disability element and service element. However, the Department has taken only disability element and had excluded service element while determining the disability pension. The tribunal has, as per the impugned order, directed to recalculate the disability pension due to the applicant afresh, taking into account the disability element as also service element. This is in conformity with Rule 10(2) of the Railway Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rule 1993. W.P.(C)No.13484 of 2009 :: 4 :: 3. In the light of the aforesaid finding, we do not find any justification in the establishment challenging the aforesaid order. In fact, the respondent has been dragged to this court without any real foundation. For this reason, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//