IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37878 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.19/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-3. 2. THE SR.DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 3. THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M.CHELLAMMAL, W/O.K.R.MARICHETTY, RETIRED SENIOR RAKSHAK, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, RESIDING AT NO.10, INDIRA GANDHI STREET, NADARMEDU, ERODE. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.37878 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.19/2008 are the writ petitioners. The applicant therein is the respondent. The writ writ petitioners challenge Ext.P4 order of the C.A.T in the above O.A. directing payment of certain benefits to the respondent, who is the widow of a Railway employee. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondent's husband, Mariechetty, voluntarily retired from service, after completing 21 years of service, on 18.5.1968. He died on 27.12.2003. Since the husband of the applicant opted for Special Provident Fund, he was not receiving any monthly pension. For the benefit of such employees, the Government issued an order dated 27.10.1998 granting ex- gratia payment of Rs.600/- per month to them, provided, they retired from service prior to 31.12.1985. The said benefit was granted with effect from 1.11.1997. Since the retirees before W.P.(C) No.37878/2008 2 31.12.1985 could not be contacted, as in most cases their present addresses may not be available, the Railways made publicity through print media regarding the introduction of this new benefit to such persons. The applicant's husband did not apply for the said benefit. But, on coming to know of the said benefit available to her husband, the applicant filed O.A.No.19/2008 claiming payment of Rs.600/- p.m. from 1.11.1997 to 27.12.2003, the date of his death. She explained the delay stating that she came to know of the benefit available to her husband only, recently, from a friend of her husband. The O.A. was resisted by the writ petitioners mainly raising two grounds. The first ground was delay, laches and limitation. It was averred that the application was hopelessly barred by limitation. Since the husband of the applicant lost his right owing to delay and laches, the same cannot be claimed by his legal heir, it was contended. On merit it was submitted that the Railways have issued a clarificatory order dated 13.11.1998, as per which, employees who voluntarily retired from Railways were not eligible for the aforementioned benefit. W.P.(C) No.37878/2008 3 3. The C.A.T., after hearing both sides, overruled both the contentions of the respondent and allowed the O.A. by Ext.P4 order. Hence, this writ petition challenging Ext.P4. 4. We will deal with the merits of the case first. The writ petitioners mainly relied on the clarification order of the Railway Board dated 13.11.1998 to contend that a person, who voluntarily retired from Railways is not eligible to get the aforementioned benefit. But, the said clarification order was quashed by the C.A.T in O.A.No.210/2002. The above decision was rendered by the C.A.T. Ernakulam Bench following a decision of the Madras Bench which was upheld by the High Court of Madras and the Supreme Court. In view of the above position, the reliance placed by the writ petitioners on the clarification order of the Railway Board dated 13.11.1998 to non suit the applicant cannot be accepted. 5. The 2nd point to be considered is whether the application is barred by limitation or the applicant was guilty of delay and laches. On this point, the Tribunal noticed that when the new benefit was introduced the applicant's husband was a 76 W.P.(C) No.37878/2008 4 year old retired employee. So, he may not have known about the order granting benefit to him. The case of the writ petitioners is that the order itself provided for various ways of publication of the benefits and the same was done. But, such a publication need not always reach all the beneficiaries. So, the possibility of the applicant's husband dying, before knowing about the benefit cannot be ruled out. At any rate, Railways do not have a case that petitioner's husband was personally informed of the benefit. The applicant came to know of it when a retired employee, who was a colleague of her late husband got the above benefit on the strength of an order of the C.A.T. On coming to know about the said decision in favour of her husband's friend, she took steps to move the Adalat for the grant of benefit. When the same did not yield any results, she moved the Original Application. The Tribunal found that the above explanation offered by the applicant is satisfactory, in the absence of any case for the Railways that her husband was personally informed about the benefit available to him. Based on that finding the Tribunal held that there is no delay or laches from her part. Without coming to know of the benefit, she cannot make any claim. So, the objection regarding limitation was also overruled. We notice W.P.(C) No.37878/2008 5 that on the facts a plausible view has been taken by the competent Tribunal, which is a final court of fact. We cannot describe the said decision as perverse. Even assuming, we would have taken a different view, if we were sitting on the original side, still the same is not a ground to interfere with the said decision of the Tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that two persons, on the same set of facts can come to diametrically opposite conclusions without forfeiting their title to be called reasonable men. This principle was stated by Lord Hailsham of St.Marylebone L.C. in In re W (An Infant) [(1971) A.C. 682]. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. The writ petitioners are given one month's time to implement the order of the C.A.T. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) ps