IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 39541 of 2003(S) -------------------------------------- OA.362/2003 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- K.N.SANTHAMMA, RETIRED DEPUTY POST MASTER-1, HEAD POST OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT SREENIKATH, HOUSE NO.701/28, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TELECOMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI. 2. POST MASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGIONAL, KOCHI. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF POSTAL ACCOUNTS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES ERNAKULAM, COCHIN. 5. POSTMASTER GENERAL OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHAMMED PUZHAKKARA, ADDL.CGSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.39541/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 5.8.98 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA. NO.1030/98. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/PEN/518/KNS DT. 5.10.98 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 30.3.2000 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA. NO.711/99. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.WP/36/99 DT. 5.7.2000 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 3.7.01 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA. NO.879/2000. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.WP-32/00 DT. 31.7.01 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 12.6.2000 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN OP. NO.15501/2000. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION OA. NO. 362/03 DT. 25.10.02 FILED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. ANNEXURE A-1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.WP 32/00 DT. 31.7.01 PASSED BY the 4TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.P(C).No.39541 of 2003 ======================== Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.362 of 2003. The O.A. was filed by her claiming interest for the terminal benefits paid to her on 29.9.2001. She retired from service on 31.3.1998. So, for the period between 31.3.1998 and 29.9.2001, the petitioner claimed interest. But the said O.A. was filed only on 25.10.2002, i.e., after the lapse of one year from 29.9.2001. So, the Tribunal held that the claim of the petitioner for interest was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. The petitioner submitted that since there was no specific order declining interest, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the above Act will not apply. In support of that decision, the learned counsel relied on the decision of a single Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Puttaswamaiah v. State WP(C) 39541/03 -: 2 :- of Karnataka - ILR 1986 Karnataka 4007. But we think, the said decision will not apply to the facts of this case. The terminal benefits were released to her on 29.9.2001 without any interest. So, the cause of action to claim interest arose on the said date. She should have approached the Tribunal within one year from the date of disbursal of the terminal benefits without interest. But admittedly, the Original Application was filed after the lapse of one year. The order releasing pension was made as per Ext.P6 dated 31.7.2001 produced along Ext.P8, Original Application. There is no direction in that order to grant pension. Therefore in effect, the challenge is against Ext.P6 to the extent it declines interest on the delayed payment of the terminal benefits. Apart from that we notice that in the earlier O.A. filed by her (O.A.No.879 of 2000), which was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment, there was no direction to pay interest to her, though she has made a specific claim for interest at the rate of 18%. The interest sought was declined by Ext.P5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the O.A. was disposed of by Ext.P5 giving certain directions to the respondents therein to consider her claim. Therefore, there was no occasion to grant WP(C) 39541/03 -: 3 :- the prayer regarding interest. We cannot agree with the said submission. The Tribunal could have ordered to grant interest on the amount of pension if it thought fit to do so. So, the petitioner's prayer having been disallowed as per Ext.P5, she is precluded from raising the very same claim again. So, on merits also, the petitioner does not have a case. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 30/1